Supreme Court: Washington Can Release Names of Ballot Signers

[bobbyw24]

Washington - A near unanimous Supreme Court today ruled Washington state can release the names of the roughly 138,000 people who signed ballot petitions to overturn a same-sex domestic partnership law.

The court found the Washington Public Records Act covered the release of referendum signatures and the state has a responsibility to promote "transparency and accountability" in the electoral process. The high court said release of the names of petitions signers would help "root out fraud" and "ferret out" invalid signatures that could result from simple mistakes.

The lone dissenting justice was Clarence Thomas.

Religious conservatives had sought to keep the signatures secret because they feared retaliation from gay rights groups. The state had argued the Public Records Act required the release of those signing initiative and referenda petitions.

At the heart of the legal dispute is Referendum 71, which sought to repeal the "anything but marriage" domestic partnership law approved by the Legislature.

http://www.truth-out.org/supreme-court-washington-can-release-names-ballot-signers60752

[jmdrake]

The lone dissenter was Clarence Thomas? :eek:

As for everyone who is applauding this decision, they probably signed this petition.

YouTube - People sign "I am a moron" petition without reading headline (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIvea_QWF4g)

[Krugerrand]

I was very curious as to the logic behind the ruling. This is what I found:

In an 8-to-1 decision, the high court said public disclosure of referendum petitions does not as a general matter violate the First Amendment. But the court also stressed that under certain circumstances, petition signers may be able to remain anonymous.

“Those resisting disclosure can prevail under the First Amendment if they can show a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure [of personal information] will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either government officials or private parties,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion in a case called Doe v. Reed.
....
In its decision, the high court said it was not considering at this stage whether disclosure of that particular petition would violate free speech principles. Instead, the issue was whether disclosure of referendum petitions in general would do so.

“We conclude that such disclosure does not as a general matter violate the First Amendment,” the chief justice wrote.

He said the justices would leave it to the lower courts to examine the claim that disclosure of the signed petitions in the Washington State case would lead to threats and harassment.

“Faced with the state’s unrebutted arguments that only modest burdens attend the disclosure of a typical petition, we must reject plaintiff’s broad challenge to the [Washington State public records act],” Roberts wrote.

In a lone dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said compelled disclosure of petition signatures “severely burdens” political speech and association rights and chills citizen participation in the referendum process.

“I would hold that Washington’s decision to subject all referendum petitions to public disclosure is unconstitutional because there will always be a less restrictive means by which Washington can vindicate its stated interest in preserving the integrity of its referendum process,” Thomas said.

State officials justify their public disclosure requirement as necessary to uphold the integrity of the referendum process.

Verifying petition signaturesThomas said state officials could verify the authenticity of petition signatures by storing the names in an electronic database where state officials could match them against voter registration and other records. This approach protects against the chilling effect of the state’s full public disclosure policy, he said.

Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring in the judgment, said he was not impressed by the plaintiff’s fear of threats and intimidation. There are laws against threats, he said, and harsh criticism is a price one must be willing to pay for self-governance.

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed,” he said. “I do not look forward to a society which… campaigns anonymously” and conducts petition initiatives “hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100624/ts_csm/310499;_ylt=Av6S0NohuYfHkfjEuQy3yuNMEP0E;_ylu=X3oD MTJkMDc3aHJxBGFzc2V0A2NzbS8yMDEwMDYyNC8zMTA0OTkEcG 9zAzgEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsD c2lnbmFwb2xpdGlj

[low preference guy]

Clarence Thomas once again makes the only sane vote.

[Krugerrand]

I'm torn on this one. The signers of the declaration of independence were not kept secret. A petition of the government is a public declaration. Keeping it a secret seems like it lends itself to manipulation and abuse.

On the other hand - why is it the unions wanted to do away with a secret ballot ... to abuse the people that do not vote their way. In a similar fashion, the disclosure of petition signers sets up a situation were the signers are ripe for abuse. That will stifle attempts to use the petition effectively.

Stand up and be counted anonymously? I'm still torn.

[angelatc]

I'm torn on this one. The signers of the declaration of independence were not kept secret. A petition of the government is a public declaration. Keeping it a secret seems like it lends itself to manipulation and abuse.

On the other hand - why is it the unions wanted to do away with a secret ballot ... to abuse the people that do not vote their way. In a similar fashion, the disclosure of petition signers sets up a situation were the signers are ripe for abuse. That will stifle attempts to use the petition effectively.

Stand up and be counted anonymously? I'm still torn.

Well, like you said - the Declaration of Independence wasn't anonymous. If it's a fight they want, then I say let's give them a fight.