Spokane7
67°
October 17, 2011 in City
Judge orders release of petitioners’ names
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The 138,000 people who signed petitions to force a vote on a 2009 domestic partnership law are unlikely to face harassment if their names are disclosed a judge said Friday while ordering the release of signatures.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle said the petitioners who advocated for privacy provided only a few experiences of indecent statements and other uncomfortable conversations. Also, there was only speculation that those incidents were connected to the issue, he said.
Disclosure would become the exception, rather than the rule, if just a few instances of harassment were used as the standard for preventing the release of names, Settle said.
Attorneys on the other side had argued that disclosure was necessary to ensure there wasn’t fraud.
“Had the Court agreed that these ballot measure petitions could be kept secret because the referendum’s sponsors were bothered by some who voiced opposition to their point of view, it would have set a terrible precedent for future elections.” said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of the Washington Families Standing Together, which led the campaign to protect the domestic partnership law.
James Bopp, Jr., an attorney pushing to keep the names private, said he planned to appeal and hoped to get a temporary ruling to prevent the immediate release of names.
“I think the court adopted an impossible standard for anyone to ever meet to protect themselves from an organized campaign of harassment,” Bopp said.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that release of the signatures does not violate constitutional rights, but the justices allowed advocates to prove that the release would put signers in danger. One of the signature gatherers testified that he received an angry text message from his brother and received obscene or profane gestures from passing cars.
Referendum 71 asked voters to approve or reject the state’s domestic partnership law, which granted registered domestic partners additional state rights previously given only to married couples. It was approved with 53 percent of the vote.
Full-fledged gay marriage is still not allowed under Washington law.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
1992 murder trial begins against sex offender 
The_Seer on October 17 at 1:26 p.m.
Signing a petiton is a form of political speech and political speech has repercussions. If you don’t want to be branded a homophobic hatemonger (and called out for being so) don’t sign homophobic hatemongering petitions.
And it took a court this long to decide?
Dazzeetrader11 on October 17 at 1:54 p.m.
Seems like the Country is spending a lot of valuable time on gay issues.
tobiasg on October 17 at 2:05 p.m.
Dazzee, seems the country is spending a lot of valuable time and MONEY on attacking gay (rights) issues.
pjc on October 17 at 2:06 p.m.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that release of the signatures does not violate constitutional rights, but the justices allowed advocates to prove that the release would put signers in danger. One of the signature gatherers testified that he received an angry text message from his brother and received obscene or profane gestures from passing cars.
A text message from his brother and the finger from a bunch of passing cars - doesn’t sound like danger to me. Good ruling.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on October 17 at 2:29 p.m.
Also the public nature of petition-signing is state law, and already was before this even happened. It has been a matter of course for all kinds of other petitions before this one – anything anyone signed at a table in front of the local supermarket was (and still is) open to public scrutiny.
The only reason that valuable time and MONEY was spent on this was that the organization/s behind the referendum wanted their supporters to be able to stay in the shadows, i.e. to be exempt from the law of the land. Sorry, folks.
misjustice on October 17 at 2:29 p.m.
The petition process is an open, public process; the names on petitions are right there for anyone to view. If petitioners and those signing them wish to have privacy they should collect the signatures in a private manner.
Voters’ rolls are public also; you can call the County Board of Elections to inquire if a voter is on the roll and the Board will disclose that information.
Elections and those that participate in the process should be open and public. That is one reason that I dislike the recent SCOTUS decision in Citizens United; it allows money to be contributed without mandating disclosure.
Dazzeetrader11 on October 17 at 2:38 p.m.
Just a lot of time the courts might spend on more pressing items. I suppose it’s the court’s priority which does say something about their agendas.
tobiasg on October 17 at 2:58 p.m.
Dazzee, if people were given equal rights under the law, there would be no reason for court challenges but either way, if one side loses there will be court challenges because of narrow minded people like you who will stop at nothing to deny the rights of consenting adults.
pjc on October 17 at 3:00 p.m.
misjustice wrote:
That is one reason that I dislike the recent SCOTUS decision in Citizens United; it allows money to be contributed without mandating disclosure.
No it doesn’t. Citizens United upheld the disclaimer and disclosure requirements of §§ 201 and 311 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
Here is the holding from Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010). Take note of #3:
The Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that:
(1) government may not, under the First Amendment, suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity, overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 110 S.Ct. 1391, 108 L.Ed.2d 652;
(2) federal statute barring independent corporate expenditures for electioneering communications violated First Amendment, overruling McConnell v. Federal Election Com’n, 540 U.S. 93, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491;
(3) disclaimer and disclosure provisions of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 did not violate First Amendment, as applied to nonprofit corporation’s film and three advertisements for the film.
You are just making stuff up.
johnclarke on October 17 at 3:15 p.m.
Daisy, embrace your gayness.
pjc on October 17 at 3:16 p.m.
Dazzeetrader11 wrote:
Just a lot of time the courts might spend on more pressing items. I suppose it’s the court’s priority which does say something about their agendas.
This is a court case in federal court. It is the court’s job to deal with the cases the parties bring, that is how things work.
IHike4Fun on October 17 at 3:17 p.m.
tobiasg. Your’s was a pretty narrow minded comment.
BlondeSquawker on October 17 at 3:28 p.m.
Dazee, your gayness is showing. ; }
BlondeSquawker on October 17 at 3:29 p.m.
….not that there’s anything wrong with that. ; P
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on October 17 at 3:32 p.m.
Got to love the “Your intolerance of intolerance is intolerant” argument :- P
Diana on October 17 at 3:37 p.m.
Misjustice is not making stuff up.
The Citizens United decision makes it possible for corporations and unions to donate anonymously to nonprofit civic leagues and trade associations. The groups can then use the money to finance political advertisements.
pjc on October 17 at 3:44 p.m.
Diana - I just quoted from the opinion, it upheld the disclosure and disclaimer provisions of the federal statute.
misjustice on October 17 at 4:05 p.m.
I no longer sign any petition in front of any store, anywhere, because of the possibility that this issue would finally be ruled on the way they did!
I didn’t sign that petition so I had nothing to worry about, but I don’t sign any of them any more, no matter what the issue.
Sunshinegurl on October 17 at 4:36 p.m.
@JustMeAgain - That’s interesting that you don’t sign petitions; until last year I didn’t know anyone had objections to signing petitions. I’ve always signed every petition and don’t care what it’s about because I believe in everyone’s right to get their issue on the ballot (it’s the only way to have laws of the people by the people and not just through legislature). Anyway, it’s always interesting to hear the different reasons people have for not wanting to sign.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on October 17 at 4:40 p.m.
No guts no glory… if you feel strongly..step into the arena… and give us all your real name… All of anyone who post’s here’s comments are taken with a large grain of Sea Salt..if you do not post who you are and what is your basis/credible life position to make comments….. no one needs to be “afraid”…. the more you cower the more it is clear that the “fear agenda” promulgated by the Republicans worked…. None of my Gay Lesbian Transgender friends would even bother to call you on the phone… it is sad you all Daisy and others are in the closet with regards who you are… john olsen ( yeah i’m in the phone book..)
misjustice on October 17 at 5:09 p.m.
I did not “just make up” the fact that large amounts of undisclosed money flowed into our politics following the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United; the FEC (still staffed with W’s hold overs btw), on the heels of the SCOTUS decision, loosened the “rules” governing political contributions and their disclosure.
“Undisclosed campaign money that began pouring into political groups during last year’s congressional elections will, without reform, only grow and lead to scandal, a group of business leaders and university professors said yesterday.
An estimated $500 million was spent to influence congressional elections in 2010 by non-profit groups, trade associations, labor unions and corporations with no trace of where the money came from or how it was used, according to the report by the Committee for Economic Development.”
continues…
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-26/keeping-campaign-money-secret-will-lead-to-scandal-report-says.html
Good try though, tomato.
detroitdude on October 17 at 5:30 p.m.
Don’t sign any petition you might end up regretting having signed. Easy enough? No? I
Dazzeetrader11 on October 17 at 5:55 p.m.
loololollolol @ John. Anything BUT gay here. Clarkie you rat. lol Making that up “embrace your gayness” Huh?
Not me boys. Never could be.
Daisy Minken (not in the phonebook…not the Spokane book anyway ;))
Pat O'Leary on October 17 at 6:35 p.m.
The HOMOphobes who signed the petitions are just like rats and cockroaches, they like to do their dirty work in the dark so no one knows who the hell they are….. basically they are sniveling cowards.
Pigrobin on October 17 at 6:41 p.m.
Hmm, you sign a public document and have an expectation it will be kept private…you must be kidding. And make sure you know what you are signing, no matter what it is…a lot of people in this country haven’t grasped this one yet.
Dazzeetrader11 on October 17 at 7:07 p.m.
Well Pigrobin just called it. Signing upon an expectation of privacy………hmm..yes. Right on the button.
I suppose that should have been codified…oh wait..the judge just made new law! No statement anywhere before today.
It’s the agenda as I said above . Pat tsk tsk tsk…quite the statement. Not correct but it’s YOUR opinion. One person gets maimed or harmed and it’s one too many.
The judge based his decision on just that. Noevidence mind you just his opinion. One person gets harmed and the judge will be called to answer.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on October 17 at 7:24 p.m.
Everybody brace yourselves for the imminent rash of homophobe-phobic violence… *sheesh*
RedCedar on October 17 at 8:20 p.m.
This was the right call. The whole kerfuffle always seemed to me like a great example of how not to pick your battles. This was a fight that didn’t need to be fought, picked by people who were afraid of what they didn’t need to be afraid of, and then it became a litmus test of whether one was supportive of or hostile to gay people.
detroitdude, regarding your comment, that’s probably why the pot legalization initiatives never pass. Most of the pot smokers are afraid to sign it for fear they’ll get busted.
Dazzeetrader11 on October 17 at 8:53 p.m.
Yes…let’s release everyone’s name who signed onto a list for controversail petitions. Just remember, it best be good for business or you will be shunned…or worse…
Justice you’ve been caught several times making things up or tainting them to suit youe odd far left unconventional purposes. It’s true. Just quit doing it and we’ll forgive you. You might get some credibility back…:)
DickAdams on October 17 at 9:23 p.m.
Seems to me, “most” of those who post comments to the SR web-site, and hide behind a phony moniker, don`t care if they lie or not, who knows who might even be gutless with a yellow streak.
misjustice on October 17 at 9:23 p.m.
^ Read the link, if you can after a case of Colt45…it’s all there.
misjustice on October 17 at 9:25 p.m.
Lol, not YOU Dick…I meant Dazzeetrader11…but you could read the link also, if you are so inclined.
; )
BlondeSquawker on October 17 at 9:31 p.m.
MsJ, “Are you writing on da seat?”
misjustice on October 17 at 9:39 p.m.
No, I am ridin’ on da seat!
; )
SpokyDaBear on October 17 at 11:53 p.m.
Cool.. now we can see the names of all the bigoted “I’m a Mormon” people…
God told their church in 1978 that blacks were no longer devil people… Maybe he will do it again and talk some sense into them about gays being people too…
ChefGus/ John Olsen on October 18 at 1:52 p.m.
You all must remember that the supreme court did rule on this… 7 to 1 with Scalia saying “if you sign you are visible’…period…how this EVER got an additional amount of court time in this state is beyond any…any… logical analysis… just shows how much influence the R’ Phobes have in the court system….. never should have had a hearing after the Supreme’s made their ruling… simple..very simple.. but money talks… j ( SO Daisy,. can i 411 you and find you in a phonebook elsewhere.??? ) thanks …you Have shared your full name before and was not one of the people I was referring to…. j