2nd UPDATE: R-71 processing begins, disclosure blocked
Sponsors of Referendum 71 have secured a federal court order that will halt, at least temporarily, plans by the state Elections Division to release the names, addresses and signatures of people who signed the R-71 petitions. As a state election crew began counting R-71 signatures, the campaign group called Protect Washington Families, went to U.S. District Court in Tacoma and got a temporary restraining order that blocks release of the more than 9,000 petition sheets.
The referendum sponsors hope to win a spot on the November statewide ballot for a public vote on whether to approve or reject a new state law (Senate Bill 5688), sometimes dubbed the “everything but marriage” bill expanding rights for registered same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples where one or more partners is 62 or older.
A citizen group called WhoSigned.org has filed a public records request seeking release of all of the petitions, planning to publish them on the Internet. State Elections Director Nick Handy said the office continues to view the petitions as a releasable public record, since there is no law exempting them from disclosure. But Protect Marriage Washington told the court that gay-marriage opponents already have been harassed and intimidated here and in California and that release of the names would subject those voters to the same mistreatment. Their attorneys also said release would “chill” the voters’ First Amendment rights.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle set a full hearing for Sept. 3.
4 thoughts on “2nd UPDATE: R-71 processing begins, disclosure blocked”
The Assistant State AG is quoted in the Seattle PI (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_domestic_partnerships.html): “The state did not oppose the restraining order request, but it will defend the Public Disclosure Act in court, Assistant State Attorney General Jim Pharris said.”
If the state does not contest the TRO or ask for an expedited hearing schedule, isn’t there the possibility that R-71 could be certified before the next hearing, which is scheduled for September 3rd? This would mean that voters would not have the opportunity before certification to determine whether their identity had been stolen by a petition backer. This would seem to defy the intent of the law, and place the validity of the certification process in doubt.
Is the Secretary of State going to press for resolution of this question in a more timely manner?
Thank you to Lurleen for asking what I wanted to know.
Also, the SRDP records are searchable on the SOS site. Why aren’t they searchable like marriage records? Is it because we have to be separate and kind-of equal for now?
So you who want it published. Are you also pushing the AG office and local and state police departments to prepare to protects people rights to not be harassed.
Is whosigned .org ready to be arrested for violating peoples constitutional rights? Or how about charges for inciting by suggesting people who disagree with you should be harassed.
Aren’t you opening up a pandora’s box here for state mandated harassment? Wouldn’t you think this tactic is ripe for abuse? How about I sue to obtain the voters roles for who voted for our marginal legislature reps. Wait that is consider protected constitutional right (as it well should be!).
If this organization gets its way look out all you voters don’t expect there to be many initiatives in the future. Will be left with the Seattle left running the state completely. Harassing all who oppose them into silence.
Paris, state law makes the signatures of initiatives public record. Anyone can make a request for these records. Whosigned.org is simply going to make these records easily searchable.
Do you seriously think that when I find out that you signed R-71 (I’m going to presume you did), that I’m going to go to your house and rough you up? Seriously, I REALLY WANT A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER.
And again, seriously, please let me know where on whosigned.org (or in the press) Brian Murphy (the man behind the site) suggests people need to be harrassed. He can not control what anyone else says. JUST ONE ARTICLE/LINK IS ALL I NEED.
Maybe I should apply your thought process and freak out that my State Registered Domestic Partnership is public record. What is someone going to do with this information?
If you have a problem with the state law madating certain records being made public, then work with your lawmakers (or start you own initiative) to end this practice. I think that it’s just this one issue you have a problem with.
Comments are closed.