Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Editorial: Rationale for petition secrecy ‘specious’

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.