April 22, 2010 in Opinion

Editorial: Rationale for petition secrecy ‘specious’

• Print
• Email
• Share

Jolene Unsoeld knows a little something about circulating initiative petitions.

And about open government.

Unsoeld was one of the driving forces that put Initiative 276, the Washington’s pioneering Public Disclosure Act, on the ballot 38 years ago.

Voters approved it by a 72-28 margin.

So it’s reasonable and timely to wonder what Unsoeld – who later served three terms in Congress – thinks about keeping petition signatures secret to protect signers from the potential of retaliation.

“That’s a recent and specious argument.”

Succinctly put, Ms. Unsoeld. Nevertheless, that’s the specious argument that state Attorney General Rob McKenna will do battle against next week when he argues before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Secretary of State Sam Reed’s decision to release the names of people who signed Referendum 71 last year.

The referendum, on last fall’s state ballot, was an effort to overturn a gay-rights law, some supporters of which threatened to publicize the names of those who signed and expose them to “uncomfortable conversations” and other forms of harassment.

That, in turn, touched off a lawsuit aimed at protecting petition signatures from the disclosure requirements Reed believes apply under the state’s public records statute.

You mean the signatures that gatherers collect out in the light of day by standing at busy street corners and shopping centers and circulating around crowded public events?

The signatures inked onto petitions that are routinely shoved in the faces of random passers-by? Those signatures?

The very ones.

Soon it will be in the hands of the Supreme Court, which must decide whether freedom of speech includes the right to help shape public policy anonymously.

That’s how lobbyists and campaign financers used to do it, behind a veil of secrecy. That was before citizen activists around the country, Unsoeld included, started opening government’s doors and windows, insisting that the people’s work be done where we all could watch.

We take the expectation of openness for granted these days, but make no mistake: Initiative 276 upset a lot of cozy political arrangements and provoked a lot of resentment against Unsoeld and her allies.

Did the citizens she approached with her petitions ever expect secrecy before signing?

Will that become the norm?

“Bizarre,” says Unsoeld. We agree.

To respond online, click on Opinion under the Topics menu at www.spokesman.com.

Five comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on April 22 at 12:18 p.m.

  Posted this on the wrong string this morning.. sorry j

  A group of people without any courage of their convictions should not hold sway in our representative government. The freedom of information act shines the bright light of truth into the dark corners that do need illumination. History shows us that being able to hide your face or identity potentiates a plethora of bad behaviours. Racism, Sexism, Anti Semitism, all are based in anonymity. Thanks for your editorial stance. john

• 

  bonner83856 on April 22 at 4:31 p.m.

  I have no problem with my name being considered “public information.” I did sign to overturn the anything-but-marriage law. However, were I to be harrassed for signing a petition, I would make life very difficult for the people harrassing me.

  With respect to ChefGus comments; I assume he supports “Check Card” because to vote in a union matter privately would, of course, mean the private voter is hidng, racism, sexism, anti-semitism or some other evil, which he should not be allowed to think, not protecting himself from the union goons.

• 

  DonnaJosie on April 22 at 7:00 p.m.

  Bonner-

  “Check card” is a vote that is not related to government legislation. A union member voting on a union issue is not acting as a legislator voting on an issue that relates to the operation of government. It’s not subject to the state’s Public Records Act which regards only the actions of government. Your analogy is inapposite (that is, off base).

  ChefGus may use a bunch of $10 words to make his/her point, but the bottom line is when a member of the public wishes to weigh in on a public matter in the form of signing a petition, that person has no more privacy than does a member of the electorate have privacy in his or her vote.

  I agree with General McKenna’s position. I trust the SCOTUS will too.

• 

  gmorton on April 22 at 10:35 p.m.

  DonnaJosie wrote,

  “when a member of the public wishes to weigh in on a public matter in the form of signing a petition, that person has no more privacy than does a member of the electorate have privacy in his or her vote.”

  I fully agree. And each person’s vote is secret, and is required to be so held by the Washington Constitution.

  You blew that one, Donna.

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on April 23 at 6:14 a.m.

  Not familiar with “check cards”… so I can’t take a position on them one way or the other… assumptions about what other’s feel, or will approve of often are eronious. ….

  My “ten dollar words” :)) come from being gifted the Readers Digest.. which had a page each month called “It Pays To Increase your Word Power”… and i use a dictionary when i read unfamiliar words… so at age 65 I’ve learned a lot of words… in this world “You win or Lose, by the Words You Choose”… Look up Ad Hominem… :)) j Oh if you click on my name “ChefGus” it is a hot link and you can see I am the father in the photo…