On October 22, the 9th circuit issued this 21-page explanation of why, on October 15, it had reversed the U.S. District Court in Washington state and had given permission to Washington’s Secretary of State to release the names and addresses of people who signed the R-71 Referendum petition.
The 9th Circuit said that petitions aren’t private anyway, because the circulators can see who signed. So can certain employees of the Secretary of State’s office, because those employees must check the petitions for validity. Also, because petition sheets contain 20 lines for signatures, someone who signs any particular sheet may glance at the names and addresses of other people who had already signed that sheet.
The next stage in this lawsuit, Doe v Reed, will undoubtedly be that the proponents of privacy will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit’s opinion. In the meantime, because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order earlier this week, while the case is pending, the names and addresses will not be released.
The argument that the names and addresses are not private because they aren’t completely private is not persuasive. There is a huge difference between having perhaps a dozen strangers see one’s name and addresses on a petition, and having one’s name and address posted on an internet site. By analogy, census data is private, yet anyone interviewed by a census employee knows that the census employee will see the information. Also, in a petition like the R-71 petition, which was circulated in many churches, a signer may know that the particular sheet he or she signed is not being circulated before the general public, but only among other attendees of that church. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news.
The names should be made public. Here is the logic. The government must be operated in a open environment to allow diverse opinions. We, the electorate, and those that signed the petition, are the government. Therefore, since those that signed the petition are the government, their names need to be released.
The analogy between voters and legislators breaks down, because the common law tradition of secret voting for voters is so strong in the U.S. and around the world. But, in legislatures, almost all voting by legislators is done publicly. So, voters are different from state legislators, even when both are acting as law-makers.
There’s also a difference between information being public for general purposes, but when people are being threatened of violence, bigotry, and hatred. That crosses the line. Those in favor of the legislation are trying to use fear and threatening economical and physical violence to get same-sex marriage passed. Bigotry and hatred is coming from those who want same-sex marriage on this issue. While the names are public domain and should stay that way, citizens should not feel like their lives are at stake for voicing an opinion. Disagreement is one thing, outright extortions and threats are evil.
SECRET ballots are one more recent MAJOR reform (revived from ancient Greece) – to reduce the power of the EVIL monarchs / oligarchs in the last 6,000 plus years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot
The EVIL ROT after the U.S.A. Civil War became intolerable — leading to the secret ballot constitutional sections and laws in the U.S.A. in the late 1800s.
Extortions and threats are CRIMINAL.
See the laws of all 50 States and the U.S.A. regime.
In Pennsylvania anyone can go to the Bureau of Elections, or County Board of Elections, as applicable, and buy copies of the signed petition forms (Nomination Papers/Petitions). We don’t have state level initiatives. Some Home-Rule Municipalities do, but my understanding is the same rules apply.