WA Secretary of State Blogs
From Our Corner

R-71 petitions: High court will hear appeal

by David Ammons | January 15th, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge of Washington’s practice of releasing initiative and referendum petitions under the state’s voter-approved Public Records Act.

r7125x

The court said it would hear oral arguments, possibly as early as April 19, on the appeal brought by Protect Marriage Washington, opponents of Washington’s new  “everything-but-marriage” domestic partnership law.

The organization and several unidentified John Doe members of the campaign won a district court ban on disclosure of Referendum 71 petitions last September, but lost in the 9th U.S.  Circuit Court of Appeals.  The appeals bench said the Secretary of State’s policy of releasing petitions as a matter of public record did not violate the First Amendment rights of initiative and referendum backers. Challengers assert that if their names and addresses are divulged and posted on the Internet by their adversaries, it could lead to harassment, injury and property damage.  The Secretary and Attorney General Rob McKenna said the voter-approved Public Records Act includes no exemption for petition, and that taking part in the initiative process is a public act of citizen legislating, and that transparency is required.

The high court put the case on an expedited review schedule, with the challenger’s legal brief due by Feb. 25 and the state reply by March 25.  State attorneys said it appears likely that the case will get a full airing in April, possibly as early as the 19th.  A decision would be expected by summertime.

Reed’s state Elections Division has been under both federal and state ban against releasing the R-71 petitions. Even after the Supreme Court decision is handed down, the state faces a challenge in Thurston County Superior Court brought by initiative activist Tim Eyman.

Voters approved R-71 by a vote of 53-47 in November, upholding the law expanding the rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners, both same sex and heterosexual couples where one or both partners is 62 or older.

Secretary Reed’s said:

“We welcome an opportunity to go to the highest court in the land to defend Washington citizens’ strong desire for transparency, openness and accountability in government, and the public’s belief that our state and local public documents must be available for public inspection.  The voters overwhelmingly approved the Public Records Act as part of a sunshine initiative back in 1972 and it has worked very well for nearly 40 years, without the Legislature or voters proposing or approving an exemption for initiative and referendum petitions.

“It is not surprising that the Supreme Court would be intrigued by a nationally-watched case dealing with disclosure, First Amendment considerations and public discourse during the Internet era.

“In Washington, we honor and promote broad participation in civic life, access to voting, freedom of expression, and to use of the right of initiative, referendum and recall, which we have had in our State Constitution for nearly 100 years.  We believe the use of `direct democracy’ exists quite well alongside the Public Records Act and the voter-approved law that requires disclosure of campaign donations and expenditures.

“Quite simply, we believe in openness AND participation.

“We firmly believe that participating in the initiative and referendum process is a public act of citizen legislating, with disclosure of petitions required under the framework of our Public Records Act, and that it can be done without violating voters’ constitutional rights, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals correctly decided.  Signing petitions in malls, county fairs and other public settings and potentially handled and seen by many observers and handlers does not carry an expectation of the privacy we have with voting.

“We are confident that Attorney General Rob McKenna will successfully defend the public’s right to their records, and that our election laws will safeguard against harassment or intimidation of signers.”

3 Responses to “R-71 petitions: High court will hear appeal”

  1. Jonathan Holbert says:

    Most people won’t care now that Referendum 71 has been approved by the voters. However, this is an important case. Like Mr. Reed said, in almost 4 decades, there has never been an exemption to releasing petitions under the our state’s Public Record Act.

    Imagine the outrage if legislators sought to prevent the release of their names from bills they sponsor or co-sponsor. People would laugh if the lawmakers claimed they would be harmed if the people knew who they were.

    “John Doe” and other signers of the Referendum 71 petition claim they’d be harmed if people discovered their identities. What’s ironic is that they sought out a minority to harm, and now that they can’t discriminate in private, they are claiming they will be the ones harmed.

    Gay people are going to start stalking the petition signers? Please. As a group, gay people are not violent. My theory is John Doe is a businessman and doesn’t want any of his customers to know that he supported discrimination against part of their community.

    No matter whether or not they signed a petition, if anyone feels that they are at risk of being harmed, they can call 911. If a particular individual has threatened to harm another, they can seek a restraining order.

    Like the idea of voting on fellow citizens civil rights, this whole issue is a utter waste of the state’s time and my tax money.

  2. I think its cowardly for people to live in fear after stating what they believe in. I would not expect any kind of retaliation for expressing my views. I encourage people to stick to their guns – especially when venting off steam or challenging an issue in this country. America is becoming way too soft in recent decades. Just tell it like it is.

  3. Most people won’t care now that Referendum 71 has been approved by the voters. However, this is an important case. Like Mr. Reed said, in almost 4 decades, there has never been an exemption to releasing petitions under the our state’s Public Record Act.

    Imagine the outrage if legislators sought to prevent the release of their names from bills they sponsor or co-sponsor. People would laugh if the lawmakers claimed they would be harmed if the people knew who they were.

Leave a Reply

 

About this Blog

The Washington Office of the Secretary of State’s blog provides from-the-source information about important state news and public services. This space acts as a bridge between the public and Secretary Kim Wyman and her staff, and we invite you to contribute often to the conversation here.

On the Web

Comments Disclaimer

The comments and opinions expressed by users of this blog are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Secretary of State’s Office or its employees. The agency screens all comments in accordance with the Secretary of State’s blog use policy, and only those that comply with that policy will be approved and posted. Outside comments will not be edited by the agency.

Your Corner of Washington

Older Posts

Blogroll

Blog Contributors

Recent Topics