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: With ruling in, release of signatures is overdue

Thu., July 22, 2010

If the American judicial process were ever accused of reckless speed, the verdict would be not guilty.

Critics of environmental protection policies recognize this. So do advocates of capital punishment, along with many others who have witnessed the tactics that delay the execution of the law.

That’s not necessarily bad. A deliberative pace allows reflection, and reflection can prevent irreversible mistakes. As carpenters say, measure twice and cut once.

But in some cases, even the final judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court must wait the process out before the declared law of the land has force. For example, Southern states dragged their feet for years, stalling compliance with the 1954 decision that prohibited school segregation.

So it should surprise no one that signatures on Washington state’s Referendum 71 remain under seal today, even though the Supreme Court ruled last month that they should be released for public inspection.

Referendum 71 was put on last fall’s general election ballot by citizens who objected to legislation granting same-sex couples all the protections that the law gives to married couples. Known as the “everything but marriage” act, it ignited a successful petition drive demanding a public vote on the question.

Voters eventually affirmed the Legislature’s action, and the law stands. But efforts to see who signed the petitions have been blocked in the courts on a claim of privacy and First Amendment protection.

That claim was rejected 8-1 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which admonished citizens who don the mantle of lawmakers, as Washington’s constitution allows them to do, that they should be prepared for a vigorous public conversation in keeping with the openness embodied in a democratic process.

The Supreme Court ruling, which upholds Secretary of State Sam Reed’s contention that the petitions are subject to disclosure under the state’s PublicRecords Act, would leave California the only state where such signatures are withheld by law.

Yet they continue to be withheld in Washington under a Superior Court order that is expected to be lifted. It’s unlikely to end there, however. The group behind the petition drive, Protect Marriage Washington, has announced its intention to return to U.S. District Court in Tacoma for an injunction against releasing the signatures. Its argument, so soon after the high court’s verdict? Some petition signers are targets of specific threats.

The Supreme Court ruling allowed that loophole, but the eight-justice majority found no such threats.

It’s been more than 30 years since the voters of Washington declared their firm expectation that government operate in full visibility of the public. That determination continues to face test after test.

In the case involving Referendum 71, the claims have been examined all the way to the highest court in the land. Justices from both ends of the ideological spectrum – all of them but Clarence Thomas – agreed on a solid opinion. It should be followed, the sooner the better.

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