OLYMPIA – The U.S. Supreme Court answered once and for all Tuesday whether a conservative group can hide the names of donors to a campaign against an assisted suicide initiative.

It can’t.

The court refused to hear an appeal of lower courts’ rulings against Human Life of Washington, which sought an injunction against the state’s Public Disclosure Commission for a planned 2008 campaign against assisted suicide. (Note: A previous version of this post incorrectly stated the group refused to report donors and the PDC found it in violation of disclosure laws.)

It was the second time in eight months the nation’s highest court upheld state disclosure laws being challenged by faith-based groups. In both cases the groups were defended by an attorney who challenges election laws around the country.

To read the rest of this post, or to comment, click here.

OLYMPIA — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 28 whether the names on ballot measure petitions are public records.

The Washington Secretary of State’s office announced this afternoon that the date has been set on a case that is getting national attention because it involves a series of First Amendment and public records issues.

The information at the heart of the case are the names and addresses on the petitions to put Referendum 71 on last fall’s ballot. After the Legslature expanded rights for same-sex couples last spring, opponents gathered signatures to let voters overturn the bill. Supporters of gay rights requested the names under the state’s public records law, but referendum sponsors objected, saying the signers could be subjected to harassment.

Although the state has previously released the names from initiative and referendum campaigns, judges have disagreed over whether the names in this case are public records. Most recently, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said they are, but that ruling is on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the question of whether people who sign initiative and referendum petitions are entitled to a cloak of secrecy.  Until the robed ones rule, though, we underlings still have time to discuss the matter. So I ask the following:

 Do those who favor secrecy, because it would protect signers from the potential of harrassment and intimidation, also favor reasonable gun control, because it would protect citizens from the potential of being shot by armed hoodlums?

Conversely, do those who believe that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, also believe that open records don’t harrass and intimidate people, people do.

In short, isn’t it consistent with pro-2nd Amendment reasoning to believe that if access to signatures on petitions results in retribution against signers, the solution is not to withhold public documents but to prosecute those individuals who do the harm?

(No wonder my home to-do list never gets any shorter. Hope you’re enjoying your holiday weekend.)

OLYMPIA — The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the names of Washington voters who sign a petition to put a law on the ballot can be made public, and subject to release.

The high court could hear the case of Doe vs. Reed as early as April, taking up the fight over the names and addresses of people who signed petitions to put Referendum 71 on last year’s November ballot.

A few hours after the court announced it was adding the case to its schedule, a legislative committee considered dueling bills spawned by the dispute. One would provide an exemption to the state’s Public Records Law for the names and addresses on initiative or referendum petitions; the other would state categorically that they are public records

Rep. Sam Hunt of Olympia, chairman of the State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee, said he couldn’t reschedule the bills for later hearings just because the court agreed to take up the R-71 case. He plans to talk with House leadership on whether to schedule a committee vote that could send one or both bills to the House floor.
For more on this story, Click Here to go inside the blog.

OLYMPIA — The U.S. Supreme Court granted a request to review the dispute on whether the names of people who sign a petition to put a law  before voters are public, and subject to release.

The high court today granted certiorari to the case Doe v Reed, and set it for a hearing as early as April. An exact date hasn’t been set.

The case involves a fight over the names and addresses of people who signed petitions to put Referendum 71 on last year’s November ballot. The referendum, which sought to overturn expanded rights for same sex and elderly heterosexual coupes, was sponsored by people opposed to gay marriage.

Supporters of gay rights filed a public records request for the names of everyone who signed the petition, Referendum backers objected, saying they feared the signers would be harassed.

Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna have said the names of people who sign initiative or referendum petitions are public under the state’s Public Records Act. Federal and state judges have disagreed. Most recently, a divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled they are public records, but the release of the names has been put on hold pending the appeal to the nation’s highest court.

Meanwhile, bills being introduced at the Legislature seek to declare the  names definitely are public or are exempt from released under the public records act.

The U.S. Supreme Court will take a peek at whether those names on the Referendum 71 petitions are public records or private info.

The Washington Secretary of State’s office, which says they are public records, announced today the Supremes have put the Ref. 71 issue on a list of cases they’ll review on Jan. 15. This could be the next step toward a full-blown appeal of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that they’re subject to release, or the end of the line for the fight.

The high court would be expected to announce that day or soon after whether they will take up the case, Brian Zylstra, deputy communications director, said.

For background on the case, go inside the blog.

By late last week one question surrounding Referendum 71 was settled: The measure passed and the “everything but marriage” statutes go into effect for the whole state, after it was approved handily in most Puget Sound counties and hammered pretty badly elsewhere.

That’s really just the quick question the ballot measure generated. The longer one, which would have survived regardless of the vote count, has political operatives watching closely, legal scholars salivating – and may give legislators something to do in coming years besides sweating  the state’s declining finances.

The question: Are the signatures on R-71 petitions  – or any other statewide ballot measure – public?

As of Tuesday night, here’s how the vote totals look in Spokane County for Referendum 71.

Stephen Colbert takes off on the fight over releasing the names from the Referendum 71 petitions, as well as a campaign ad from the Protect Marriage folks.

Latest in the legal battle over the names of people who signed Referendum 71 petitions: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy today blocked the release of the names which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unblocked last week.

Kennedy got a request from the group supporting the petition drive, and said the order will stay in place until he’s had a chance to review the appeal.

His decision also will stay any release of other initiative petitions, which are being fought over in state courts.

Anyone want to bet that this isn’t settled either way until after the Nov. 3 election?

Washington state can release the names and addresses of people who signed the petion for Referendum 71, a ballot measure that attempts to peel back the latest changes to the state’s domestic partnership laws, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said today.

A 9th Circuit panel this morning revesed a trial court ruling that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signmers. But the names aren’t going to be released right now, because a separate court ruling in Thurston County has a temporary restraining order blocking that.

To read the Associated Press’s latest version, go inside the blog. We’ll try to keep it updated regularly.

Whether Referendum 71 goes on the November ballot may still be in doubt.

An opposition group, Washington Families Standing Together, did what a King County Superior Court judge essentially suggested it do Tuesday, filing for an injunction in Thurston County over questions about the validity of petitions.

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed certified the referendum for the ballot this week after announcing it had the required 124,000 or so signatures on petitions. But some of those petitions had not been signed in the required box by the people who collected them. The campaign manager for the petition drive signed some of them, others were blank.

Some of the signers also weren’t registered to vote until they signed the petition.

Both of these are potential problems Judge Julie Spector said yesterday. But they weren’t problems that she could rule on, because they were being raised before the referendum was certified. Once it was certified, Spector said, opponents would have to go to Thurston County Superior Court.

That’s what they did, quoting extensively from Spector’s discussion of the problems with the petitions. They challenge the validity of some 35,000 signatures; and the petition drive had only about 1,500 to spare.

Expect a quick hearing on this one. The clock is ticking toward the deadline for getting ballots printed around the state, and a statewide voters pamphlet.

Referendum 71 should go on the November ballot. So says Secretary of State Sam Reed. So says King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector.

Reed certified the voters’ opportunity to repeal the “everything but marriage” law Wednesday. That was pretty much a given because his office previously reported it had more than enough signatures to make the ballot. It was a close one, with only about 1,400 signatures to spare, and it made the cut by having one of the lowest rejection rates in history.

Spector rejected a request from opponents of the initiative to block it from the ballot because of questions about the way the petitions were turned in. Some of the petitions did not have the validation box filled out, which is to be signed by the person collecting the signatures. Some were turned in blank, then stamped by campaign manager Lawrence Stickney, others remained blank.

Reed accepted the petitions anyway, which is standard practice for petitions. Spector said Reed has the authority to accept the petitions for verification, and his decision can’t be challenged until after the measure is certified for the ballot. Opponents have five days to take their case to Thurston County Superior Court, which is where challenges of the petition process are handled, she said.

Referendum 71 supporters have a new challenge. The size of the petitions they need to distribute for signatures.

The proposed ballot measure, which if passed in November would repeal aspects of domestic partnership passed this year by the Legislatulre, must contain all the sections of the law it seeks to change. That law covers 114 pages in the original bill, but has to fit on a single sheet for a referendum petition, state initiative rules say.

So supporters shrunk the type and printed it front and back on a super-sized piece of paper, which folds out like one of those maps you get from AAA that never get refolded quite right.

The Washington Secretary of State’s office released the above photo of a petition, being held by office spokesman David Ammons.

Look for the petition at a gathering place near you. For people who believe in reading anything before they sign it, be advised: bring lunch.

A gay rights group’s plan to post the names of everyone who signs Referendum 71 petitions has some people outraged and others insisting that folks shouldn’t sign petitions unless they have the guts to defend their decision.

In other words, it’s your standard dichotomy in politics: WhoSigned.org is either assisting in a more open electoral process or engaging in a scurrilous political ploy in its fight against a ballot proposal that would overturn certain legal rights for same-sex couples.

Before deciding who’s right, we can apply a test known as “change a few details, see what you think.”

A group opposing Referendum 71 says it will publicize the names of everyone who signs petitions to put Referendum 71 on the fall ballot.

The group, which has named the site whosigned.org, says that the referendum process “must meet a high standard of transparency to ensure a fair and open discussion in the public forum.”

The referendum asks voters to veto Senate Bill 5688, a new law granting domestic partners many of the same rights and responsibilities of spouses. From the website:

Once signature petitions for initiatives and referenda are submitted and verified by the Secretary of State they are part of the public record.  When signatures for Referendum 71 have been verified WhoSigned.Org will:

-Work to make this public record signature information accessible and searchable on the internet.
-Flag the 3% signature sample that is certified by the Elections Division of the Secretary of State.
-Provide Washington State Voters with a way to check that the public record of their advocacy is correct.
-Provide Washington State Voters with a way of reporting when their signature has been recorded either fraudulently or in error.

(I’m hoping to hear back from Brian Murphy, one of the organizers of the site. Will update when I do.)

People trying to overturn a new law giving expanded rights to same-sex domestic partners have filed an 11th-hour appeal of the proposed ballot language.

The move sets their own signature-gathering effort back at least a week, but seems aimed at boosting their odds by trying to make voters see domestic partnerships as virtually identical to marriage.

Shortly before the 5 p.m. deadline today, Arlington’s Larry Stickney filed an appeal with the Thurston County Superior Court. He wants a judge to re-word the description and ballot summary of Referendum 71.

Here’s the summary language originally proposed by the Attorney General’s office (the bold-facing is mine, to highlight the differences):

Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state.  Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman.  This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.

Here’s what Stickney proposes instead:

This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities and obligations of registered domestic partners to be equal to the rights, responsibilities and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples, except that domestic partnerships will not be called marriages.

Similarly, here’s the original description wording proposed by the AG:

“Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.”

And here’s how Stickney would like it to read:

“Concise Statement: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities and obligations of state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partnerships, to be equal to the rights, responsibilities and obligations of married couples, except that domestic partnerships will not be called marriages.”

The point, clearly, is to suggest that domestic partnerships are now essentially the same thing as marriage. That’s what critics of the new law have been saying — and proponents have been denying — for months. In fact, state Sen. Ed Murray, one of several openly gay lawmakers and the sponsor of the bill, has repeatedly called the legislation the “everything but marriage” bill.

According to Brian Zylstra, spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office, the case has been assigned to Judge Thomas McPhee, but no date’s yet been set. (Case number: 09-2-01278-1)

The court typically handles such cases as part of its Friday motion calendar, meaning that the earliest date would be May 29. The Secretary of State’s office says that June 5 or June 12 is probably more likely. 

If it’s the latter date, Stickney and affiliated church groups and social conservatives would have just six weeks to print and circulate petitions. To get R-71 on the November ballot for a statewide vote, they need at least 120,577 voter signatures by July 25th.

California’s supreme court has upheld Proposition 8, the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling, however, allows thousands of same-sex marriages performed prior to the ban.

California’s experience has been closely watched in Washington, where gay marriage opponents have filed a referendum to undo a state law granting domestic partners most of the rights and responsibilities of spouses.

In interviews, foes of same-sex marriage cite Prop. 8 as evidence that voters, if given the chance, will reject it. (In Washington, the picture’s a little less clear, since the law targeted by the referendum stops short of full marriage.)

On the other side of the issue, some gay marriage proponents see California as an argument for a more incremental approach to winning the right to marry.

“If the brief back-and-forth history of marriage equality in California teaches us anything, it’s that progress must occur with public involvement and input, one step at a time,” said Washington state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, one of several openly gay lawmakers in Olympia.

“…In Washington, we remain dedicated to continuing our conversation with the public and steadily building upon our domestic partnership progress,” he said. “I’m confident that Washington state will soon be ready to accept — once and for all — full marriage equality for all.”

From the governor’s office:

Gov. Chris Gregoire on Monday will take action on three bills which expand rights to domestic partners:
 
Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 1445, relating to domestic partners under the Washington State Patrol retirement system.
 
Engrossed House Bill No. 1616, relating to the state pension benefits of certain domestic partners.
 
Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5688, relating to further expanding the rights and responsibilities of state registered domestic partners.
 
 
10:30 a.m.        Gov. Gregoire to take action on HB 1445, HB 1616 and SB 5688
                        Montlake Community Center, Multipurpose Room
1618 E Calhoun St
Seattle

SB 5688 gives domestic partners, including same-sex couples, most of the rights and responsibilities of spouses under state law. (Federal law doesn’t recognize domestic partners.) It  has prompted a referendum attempt by church groups and others who say that is virtually the same thing as same-sex marriage. The Faith and Freedom Network and others have filed Referendum 71, which would ask voters in November if they want to veto the new law.

Opponents of the state’s new “everything but marriage” law for same-sex domestic partners rushed to Olympia last week to file Referendum 71. The clock is ticking, and they only have until July 25th to gather 120,577 valid voter signatures. Assuming a cushion of about 25 percent for duplicate signatures, Mickey Mouses, people not registered to vote, etc., they’ll probably need about 150,000.

Today, however, Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office has said that the ballot title and summary won’t be issued until Gov. Chris Gregoire signs the bill into law. Since Gregoire doesn’t plan to sign the bill until Monday, that means another week lost before Referendum 71 filers can start printing up petitions.

(It also means, however, that the Refendum 71 folks won’t face the risk of spending thousands of dollars printing up petitions, only to see them all rendered moot if Gregoire vetoes some section of the bill.)

“We have begun our work in drafting a title and summary for this measure, but the bill in question has not yet been enacted, as it has not been approved by the Governor as required by the constitution,” deputy solicitor general Jim Pharris wrote today to Secretary of State Sam Reed, the state’s chief elections officer.

Gregoire can also veto parts of the bill. If she does that, Referendum 71 organizers would have to re-file the measure.