Spokane7
50°
April 28, 2010 in City
Court skeptical on keeping signers’ names private
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical today about keeping secret the names of people who signed a petition to repeal Washington state’s gay rights law, suggesting citizens cannot always hide behind anonymity if they want to be heard.
Opponents of gay rights want the court to keep the names private to avoid intimidation by the other side. But several justices questioned whether allowing petitioners to stay anonymous might imperil other vital open records like voter registration and lists of donors to political candidates.
“The fact is that running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process.”
The case, which will be decided by the court before the end of the summer, could draw a new line between voters’ desire for openness in government and the right to political speech unfettered by fear of intimidation.
Opponents of the law that expanded the rights of gay couples mounted a petition drive that succeeded in getting a referendum on the “everything-but-marriage” law on last year’s ballot. But voters backed the law by a 53 percent to 46 percent tally that granted registered domestic partners the same legal rights as married couples.
While the campaign was under way, gay rights supporters sought access to the petitions under Washington’s open records law. Protect Marriage Washington, the group that organized opposition to the law, objected, saying its members would be harassed if their names were made public.
“No person should suffer harassment for participating in our political system, and the First Amendment protects citizens from intimidation resulting from compelled disclosure of their identity and beliefs and their private associations,” lawyer James Bopp Jr. said.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to keep the names secret, but the Supreme Court stepped in and blocked release of the names before the vote. The justices later intervened in another case in which gay rights opponents complained about potential harassment. The court’s conservative majority prevented broadcast of the trial on California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Bopp said people who signed the petition faced the prospect of harassment. Scalia called that “touchy-feely, oh-so sensitive.”
“You know, you can’t run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known,” Scalia said.
“I’m sorry, Justice Scalia, but the campaign manager of this initiative had his family sleep in his living room because of the threats,” Bopp replied.
Scalia said threats should be moved against vigorously. “But just because there can be criminal activity doesn’t mean that you have to eliminate a procedure that is otherwise perfectly reasonable.”
Washington Attorney General Robert M. McKenna denied there was evidence of violence or threats against petition signers.
If there was proof of violence, the petition signers could ask for a preliminary injunction, McKenna said. “Such situations should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the reasonable probability of threats, harassments, and reprisals,” he said.
Making the petition names public also helps the state fight fraud, McKenna said. And “it’s also about finding plain old mistakes which the state, the secretary of state, or auditor has missed.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that while Protect Marriage Washington says it wants to keep the petition names anonymous, organizers of petitions often make the names public themselves by selling the names to other organizations and using them for fundraising.
“So that would be the end of a person’s privacy,” she said.
Chief Justice John Roberts compared signing a petition to voting, saying a person’s vote might be chilled if it was revealed which candidate they voted for. McKenna argued that chill would be no more significant than it is for having campaign contributions or voter registration disclosed.
Justice John Paul Stevens, listening to his final arguments before retiring later this summer, said there might be a public interest in seeing the names on a referendum petition to “identify people who have a particular point of view on a public issue.”
“And if you have the other point of view, don’t you have an interest in finding out who you would like to convince to change their minds?” Stevens said.
But Justice Samuel Alito questioned McKenna on whether his office was willing to give out the home address of its lawyers so people could show up and have “uncomfortable conversations” with them about issues in which they disagree.
“We could not release it because they can come to the office and have uncomfortable conversations with them, which I can personally attest happens with some regularity,” McKenna said to laughter in the courtroom.
The Associated Press is among 22 news organizations and media trade associations that filed a brief in the case supporting public disclosure of the documents.
The case is Doe v. Reed, 09-559.
Couple acquitted of caging 2 boys 
Another_Perspective on April 28 at 9:34 a.m.
A government of, by and for the people….and we should know whom “them” people is that wants to enable our laws.
We dont make a secret out of our legislators votes, (just all the money they take to be influenced to look the other way). The shoe fits doesnt it McMorris.
misjustice on April 28 at 9:41 a.m.
I’ve said it before and will say it again. Just because I sign to put something on the ballot doesn’t mean I will vote in favor of the bill when the time comes.
I think it is appropriate to let people choose if they want or don’t want a law passed. I don’t think it is appropriate to have the names posted for all to see that signed the petition to put the issue on the ballot. If that happens, then people will stop signing petitions to put items up for vote.
It is wrong to disclose who signed the petition!
Another_Perspective on April 28 at 10:16 a.m.
“then people will stop signing petitions to put items up for vote.”
Gramma thats how we keep STUPID laws from getting on the ballot.
Orange on April 28 at 10:34 a.m.
Now there’s a perspective I agree with. I’m not signing any more petitions. My vote is obviously not private.
on the other hand, you can harrass me all you want. I’m opposed to any gay rights crap that’s in our government.
chefxh on April 28 at 10:54 a.m.
Oh, boo hoo, call the waaahmbulance. Signers fear “potential harrassment.” Again I have to stress the difference between the secret ballot, which no one wants to change, and the need for transparency in the legislative process. If you put your name and address and signature on a petition, that information has to be public if it brings about ANY legislation, regressive or not. I’m glad the Court seems, for once, inclined to agree with me.
And as for “the right to political speech unfettered by fear of intimidation,” what about the first people who spoke out in favor of equal rights? What about the gay people who got tired of being beaten or fired or jailed or hospitalized or evicted and demanded equality? Which do you think took more courage? Which looks cowardly now?
chelsita on April 28 at 11:31 a.m.
Go McKenna! Out of nowhere comes Scalia to call for “civic courage.” Classic.
empyrius on April 28 at 11:39 a.m.
If anybody has a belief they are too cowardly to openly declare then they do not even deserve a vote!
Anonymity is for cowards!
So declares Empyrius (Spokane native Craig Jones that is)!
Amen
IHike4Fun on April 28 at 12:54 p.m.
We are actually protected from intimidation tactics and other ‘hate crime’ activity. If people receive hate mail or hate phone calls I’d recomment turning it into the FBI.
MrNatural on April 28 at 1:19 p.m.
So let me get this straight (ok poor choice of words) this is being debated to keep gay haters in the closet (ha) or to say “I’ll sign it but don’t tell anyone I did”…
Strange is the public relationship we have with those who espouse similar sexual orientation. Knowing full well that many who wish to remain anonymous do so as not to bring scrutiny upon them because they have gay associates they most likely wish not to offend or associates whom they wish not to know that they are prejudiced.
And on the other hand does this infer that your vote is not private anymore…
Hmmmmmm?
JayNW on April 28 at 1:52 p.m.
I wonder how this argument would turn out if it were the signers of the legalize marijuana petition whose names were to be disclosed. Their argument to remain anonymous would be that if the cops had access to their names, then they would be harassed/arrested.
As long as there is a process to validate the names on the initive petition, which there is- then there is no real reason to have the names published. I have yet to hear the reason “why” the gay rights groups want the names public. And I am in the “I don’t care one way or another” crowd. As far as I’m concerned, the gov’t should not be in the business of marriage, leave that up to a church. There shouldn’t be gov’t sanctioned marriage for anyone- however any 2 people, gay or straight, should be allowed to enter into a civil union to protect assests, tax filings, hospital visits, insurance and such. But those are all civil matters. Again, leave the marriage part up to someones church, not a gov’t agency.
Megan_B on April 28 at 3:45 p.m.
Because straight people are so often harassed by the homosexuals…. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I hate to break it you kiddos, but we’ve got a long history of it being the other way around.
The gays and their straight supporters just want equality and freedom for every American citizen. Their opposers want to (secretly) block the way with their medieval thinking for as long as possible.
chelsita on April 28 at 4:25 p.m.
mommie, you need to go to Iran. I think they will appreciate your point of view over there.
Leo_Z on April 28 at 5:18 p.m.
Wow, Mommie. Did these people hurt you somehow? I’ll be the first to say everyone has a right to their own opinion, but that is as ignorant a stance as a person can take.
I have to ditto the words of Jay and Megan. Marriage itself should not be part of a society framed with the freedom of religion. Likewise, the bigots need to grow some if they want to continue to push their bigotry.
Most homosexuals go through some serious judgements when coming out. If the bigots have no courage to put their own name on their hateful statements, then they shouldn’t be allowed to share their opinions at all.
Are we seriously comparing the right to free (hate) speech with the right to live a normal life?
reservedparking on April 28 at 6:38 p.m.
Easy solution. Don’t sign petitions.
Dazzeetrader11 on April 28 at 6:46 p.m.
NOPE…wrong solutions. Gramma has it nailed. Think of it this way all you brave sould: ONE person gets killed or maimed as a result of letting names be public and there will be more trouble than you cn imagine….not withstanding it would be a irrevocable death or maim.
Is the solution to carry a gun just in case someone might try to hurt someone? And if one of the mishaving gays decides to commit some unusual form of retalialtion…and get her/his head shot off, how would you feel then? Every group..bi, gay, straight…has crazy people… ( 17% comes to mind). Let’s be thoughtful.
Anonymity is about the only way to avoid violence..physical violence. I hope the Supremes weigh this thought. It’s just not practical to give names out….doesn’t matter the side..it’s just not practical. Besides what “good” could come of it?
spokanada on April 28 at 7:05 p.m.
Wow, I cant help but feel sorry for the people with all the hate.
Mommie, did you write that comment or did one of your teenage kids get onto your computer?
I feel sorry for your kids. I hope that they have the courage to come out of the closet if they are gay. I know it wouldn’t be easy to have to deal with your maturity level.
And Daisy, the law states that the names on the petition are on open record. The signers new this before they wrote their names down.
This case has already been decided so quit your crying.
spokanada on April 28 at 7:11 p.m.
So Mommie,
What is your real name? You said you “dont have a problem whatsoever disclosing my name. I’ll be one of the first to stand up and say that its NOT OK TO BE GAY!!!!! Yes im HOMOPHOBIC AND PROUD OF IT…If i could get away with signing my name more than one sign me up. Them Fa**ots need to go to Gay California.”
That’s a pretty good quote. I’m surprised the SR lets you keep spewing your hatred.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on April 28 at 10:58 p.m.
So… mommie and orange…. let us have your name and photo on this site…. you can find me any day of the week… be nice to have a balanced play field… come out from under your white hood…. john
Dazzeetrader11 on April 28 at 11:11 p.m.
Spokanada…it’s at the Supreme Court because they DIDN’T know or were told their names would be made public. This is what the case is about. Not so sure you understand..
Mommie…it’s a joke? Mommie’s entitled to her opinion. If you don’t like what she wrote…it doesn’t matter. We’re n America and we can have opinions and speak them…without penalties.
Justin_Galloway on April 28 at 11:33 p.m.
Honestly, I think the threat of violence is a red herring. What signers are really worried about is a boycott to their businesses or (and this really would be tragic) a threat to their employment. Still, I have to chalk this up to one instance where I agree with Scalia.
andrewz on April 29 at 9:24 a.m.
A comment referenced by several people above has been removed.
Dazzeetrader11 on April 29 at 11:31 a.m.
Many of you keep referring to “HATE”. It biases the discussion. And it’s wrong characterization of the word. Words matter. HATE is extreme contempt with some actions to back it up.
Dislike is a better term. Maybe even extreme dislike…but if you’ve ever seen REAL hate in action, you’d soon know that your version of the word is more of a colloquialism than anything else. Of course it’s tinged with the real word which is why it partially precludes further discussion.
Careful using that word as slang.
Spokanada…remember…this is what the case is about…again. Nobody ever knew their names would be released. This case occurred because the gays wanted release of the names. The question then becomes…should those people be unmasked because the other side wants retaliation…physical, economic, etc In my view, they shouldn’t be released as long as the signatures can be verified as true.
Read before you spewforth.
misjustice on April 29 at 7:12 p.m.
Let’s look at this from the ‘legal’ question, which is what the court will address.
In order for a petitioner’s signature/address to be ‘privileged’ information, those collecting information would have to take steps to keep that info ‘protected/privileged’; but they do not.
Think about the very petition process. Many times, petitions are thrust at us as we are going about our daily lives on public throughways or in front of public places such as stores.
The petition is a long list of previous signers, and those names/info are there for any potential new signer to see. The info is not kept ‘private’ during the petition process, no security screen or other method is used to keep that information from the view of others.
Therefore, I would argue that in order for the info to be deemed as ‘private’, petitioners must take steps to guard said info from the view of other signers; otherwise the information is collected in public and therefore is PUBLIC.
Obviously, many that sign petitions have no idea about the concept of ‘privileged’ or ‘private’ in the legal sense; and they also, no doubt, have no concept of how messy ‘Direct Democracy’ can be = the initiative process. I also doubt that many comprehend how monied interests from outside the state (with their own little agenda’s) attempt to influence those that are unaware of what their actions truly mean….it’s easy to get all up in arms over a ‘hot button issue’ it is more difficult to think out the rammifications of what signing a petition will bring about.
misjustice on April 29 at 7:20 p.m.
As to the fear of violence that ‘conservaturds’ are worried about should those nasty gay people find out who signed their little petition of hate and prejudice; HOW DOES IT FEEL????
Homosexuals have been persecuted under the umbrella of ‘religion’ for hundreds of years…
You haters are entitled to your homophobia in your own private, small little lives; however, you are not entitled to act on your hate or to stay in the shadows of hate if you are attempting to impact state legislation that will be binding on the rest of the state/community.
Wonder what ‘mommie’ would do should one of her kids turn out to be homosexual…actually, I don’t wonder, I have a good idea that she would cease being their ‘mommie’. DISGUSTING!