Supreme Court to hear case on releasing referendum petition signatures

Sacramento Bee ^ | 4/25/10 | LES BLUMENTHAL - McClatchy Newspapers

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a Washington state case in which religious conservatives fear retaliation from gay rights groups if the names of the 138,000 people who signed ballot petitions to overturn a same-sex domestic partnership law are released.

State officials say the Washington Public Disclosure Act, approved by voters nearly 40 years ago, requires the release of signatures on initiative and referenda petitions. Until now, no one had ever challenged their release.

Though Referendum 71 is at the heart of the legal dispute, the issues are far broader, including how open the state's initiative process will be. State officials also fear that if this challenge to the state disclosure law is successful, it will open the door to other challenges.

"It's the public's right to know versus the right to privacy," said Secretary of State Sam Reed, who is named in the lawsuit. "It's exactly the type of case the Supreme Court likes."

Lawyers for Protect Marriage Washington, which sponsored R71, say gay rights groups in California have harassed and intimidated those who signed petitions for an initiative barring gay marriages in that state. They fear the same thing will happen in Washington state.

[nolongerademocrat]

Babies, do not fear retaliation - follow Obama’s advice - if they bring a knife - you bring a gun...

[Psycho_Bunny]

The gay groups want these names purely for harrassment.

[Cyber Liberty]

I’ll bet the petitions will be released, in the end. I don’t think signing a petition will be seen as having a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[Loud Mime]

For some time I have been in favor of publishing the donors’ names and such; I no longer favor such “accountability.” Donations should be private, just like votes.

I changed my mind after the gays started phoning and harassing those who donated to Prop 8. This is by no means an isolated incident; it’s going to increase. It is what socialist factions do.

If this privacy is upheld, the focus will fall on the issue instead of the groups....after the liberals are done whining.

[Cyber Liberty]

You bet that’s what’s going on. This may chill future ballot initiatives that target thugs.

[bitterohiogunclinger]

“The gay groups want these names purely for harassment.”

It's about time to turn the tables. If even one signer of the petition is harassed, file charges of violation of civil rights and voting rights act. Rico prosecution should follow.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I changed my mind after the gays started phoning and harassing those who donated to Prop 8. This is by no means an isolated incident...

See Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals."

[thethirddegree]

Unless they repent, sodomites have Hell as their destination.

[skr]

I agree, although it enables harassment in an uncivil society.

[Ol' Sparky]

The gay groups want these names purely for harrassment.

Yet, we don't see one word about all the harassment and acts of vandalism and assault homosexual activists engage, especially in California during the Prop 8 debate. But, they will imply that is what those involved in the Tea Party movement want to do even though there hasn't been one single act of vandalism or assault linked to anyone involved with the Tea Party movement.

[tickles]

maybe everyone needs to change their voice-mail message to these calls may be recorded for quality purposes. Then keep harassing messages and don’t answer the phone until the message has played, you can always let the call continue recording if you don’t know the person on the other end.