Friday update for R-71 signature courtwatchers

Friday update for R-71 signature courtwatchers

(UPDATE: This blog was updated 10-16-09 at 4:58 p.m.)

r71 main1Although the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has given the green light for releasing Referendum 71 petition sheets under terms of the state’s Public Records Act, it’s not quite that simple. Both state and federal courts are still involved and it will be at least a few more days until we know if the petitions can be released.

The Attorney General’s Office, which is representing the Secretary of State, says:

1. The “John Does” and Protect Marriage Washington have asked the 9th Circuit to reconsider its decision to overturn U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle’s decision last month to block release of the petitions. Protect Marriage Washington gained a ballot spot for R-71, which asks voters to either approve or reject the state’s new domestic-partnership legislation. Reconsideration, or a hearing by the full circuit bench, is seldom granted.

2. Protect Marriage Washington plans to ask Justice Anthony Kennedy to delay the effect of the 9th Circuit ruling while they seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[UPDATE 10-16-09 4:58 pm] 3. Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks has scheduled a hearing at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday on the state’s request to allow release of R-71 petitions, given the 9th Circuit’s ruling. He asked both sides to brief the question of why he should act before receiving the full 9th Circuit’s opinion, and to address why he should treat the R-71 question separately from the 11 other initiative petitions that he is being asked to block by initiative activist Tim Eyman.  Earlier this week, Hicks issued a blanket order prohibiting the state from releasing any petitions, including the ones cited by Eyman as well as R-71.  The 9th Circuit’s three-judge panel has reversed a lower court order specifically dealing with R-71, authorizing release of the petitions. The judges said they would release their full opinion soon.

Stay tuned.

2 thoughts on “Friday update for R-71 signature courtwatchers”

  1. No other referendum has ever requested release of the names of the petitioners, nor should they. If this is done, then no one can sign a petition and expect not to be assaulted or assailed in some manner by the opposing forces.

    There is an expectation of privacy when signing something like this. Otherwise, the threat of exposure is the same as living in communist Russia/China, and free speech will cease to exist. This is an Appalling assault on free speech and the protections it affords. ARE WE NOT LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

  2. Buffy…

    There’s absolutely no expectation of privacy when signing a petition sheet.

    – You sign in public…
    – on a document open to public view…
    – on a document signed by other individuals
    – gathered by a person who is not an agent of the State
    – who can show that petition to whomever they choose
    – who can sell that petition to whomever they choose
    – who can copy that petition in any manner they choose
    – who can choose to post copies of that petition online
    – who can contact the signers of that petition in any manner they choose
    – who can then do whatever they choose with that petition

    So, as is currently the law and practiced, the signature gatherer can choose to do whatever they want with the petitions. And, you think there’s a presumption of privacy?

    Open government would mandate that all interested parties have equal access to the petitions as does the signature gatherer.

Comments are closed.

Comments are closed.