On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court released an opinion in Doe v Reed, holding that disclosure of the names and addresses of petition signers does not violate the U.S. Constitution. The decision is by Chief Justice John Roberts. The vote was 8-1, with a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas. The opinion says that if a group that submits a petition can show that the signers are likely to be harassed, then it can bring an as-applied challenge. Here is the opinion.
The Court’s opinion is only 13 pages long. The Thomas dissent is 19 pages long. Justice Alito wrote separately to say the as-applied exception for groups claiming the likelihood of harassment should be granted early in the process. Justice Sotomayor wrote separately to say that the as-applied exception should not be granted easily, and her concurrence was co-signed by Justices Ginsburg and Stevens. Justice Scalia would not sign the Court’s opinion, and wrote separately to say that the U.S. Constitution does not protect secret voting, nor anonymous political speech.
The names and addresses of people who signed the particular referendum petition in this lawsuit will still not be released, until after the case has returned to U.S. District Court to hear the as-applied challenge. The particular referendum in Washington state concerned the civil unions law which the legislature passed in 2008. A referendum petition was filed against that law, and the voters then voted on the civil unions law in November 2008. Voters voted to keep the civil unions law.
It took State constitutional amendments in many States to get the secret ballot — to END the bad old days of voter harassment – threats, etc.
More amendments to have secret petitions ???
Even some for the nearly dead U.S.A. Constitution ???
What is the as applied harassment index – ONE death threat , ONE assault , ONE murder, etc. — regarding *unpopular* petitions ???
What about those anonymous per curiam SCOTUS opinions ???
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/todays-decision-in-doe-v-reed/#more-22120
More info.
Any signers of the 1776 Declaration of Independence get harassed ???
Of course, ALL of them were traitors according to the U.K. regime. Some were caught and killed. Others had their property destroyed or taken over by the Brits.
Any PRO-slavery petitions in the free States in 1860 ???
Any ANTI-slavery petitions in the slave States in 1860 ???
As usual — how STUPID are many of the party hack Supremes (and their poor suffering clerks) about history in the U.S.A. ???
Hi! My comments are on my campaign Blog:
http://USMJP.com
I am on the official election ballot in Vermont, running for two offices, Governor and United States Senator, for the UNITED STATES MARIJUANA PARTY.
I submitted my two ballot access petition signature nomination petitions to the Vermont Secretary of State’s office (and the VT Secretary of State, Deborah Markowitz, is a Democratic candidate running in the Primary Election for Governor, so in a sense, she is a “conflict of interest”)
on May 17, 2010
and I did not know at that time that
the petitions could be made public.
Each and every page of the petitions states
“UNITED STATES MARIJUANA party”.
I certainly believe the voters of Vermont should have their right to privacy, in my case.
I am particularly concerned that Deborah Markowitz will be selling copies of my petitions and distributing them to the F.B.I. and D.E.A.
if I cannot immediately find a PRO BONO ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT ME AND MY PETITION SIGNERS. I signed my own petitions, also, because I am a registered voter.
I am concerned that Deborah Markowitz has not warned or informed me if SHE MAY BE ALREADY SELLING AND DISTRIBUTING COPIES OF THESE TWO
UNITED STATES MARIJUANA PARTY PETITIONS!
IF YOU CAN REPRESENT ME PRO BONO AND FILE AN “AS-APPLIED” OR WHAT EVER APPROPRIATE MEASURE IS NECESSARY, THEN
PLEASE SEND ME AN OVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL PACKAGE,
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT, WITH ATTORNEY CONSENT FORM, TO:
CRIS ERICSON
879 CHURCH STREET
CHESTER, VERMONT 05143-9375
(802)875-4038
I HAVE DIAL UP INTERNET SO MY PHONE IS USUALLY BUSY, AND I WON’T GIVE OUT MY CELL PHONE ON THE INTERNET.
Cris Ericson, the U.S. Supreme Court decision today said people in your position can still win an as-applied challenge if there is really any reason to fear harm done to people who sign.
Was the harassment of signers of Communist Party petitions during McCarthyism mentioned? It’s the first thing that went through my mind as I learned of this case.
No brief, and no amicus brief, in this case, mentioned that people who signed petitions for the Communist Party in 1940 in some states, or for Henry Wallace in 1948, had their names and addresses printed in Scripps-Howard newspapers. I tried to get the Socialist Workers Party to file an amicus brief, and their attorney asked them if they wanted to do that, but they didn’t do it.
How many of the openly communist folks in 1945-1962 got purged ???
Lost jobs, got deported, etc. etc.
How many New Age left/right purge lists have been and are been compiled using computers, the internet, etc. — by the usual suspect right/left gangs ???
As a long time professional petition gatherer and now state coordinator, there is too much emphasis on the subjects. It is the process itself which most signers appreciate which allow for pulic scrutiny and debate prior to the voting!The extremists have their minds made up but it is the public that weighs the information or the missinformation, discerns,then decides. The signers are about 80% unsure of their actual vote unless it is an emotionially charged issue. It is a bad assumption, statistically proven, that the majority of voters who endorse a petition will then vote yea.
I do not believe this supreme decision therefore considers the sancity of the process. Instead it’s ends are divisive. The signers of these petitions are not contributors. They will be however,the legacy of agendas which could assist or detract from the quality of their lives. Voting allows for majority rule. The government in this way makes a bigger case for its own presence and protection when issues trump the process. Pitting people against each other is vastly different than educated debate.
Foregoing the sanctity of the process cheapens the value of understanding, dignity and compassion. Instead of diversity we are fostering hostility. Is it it really about idealilogue v. idealilogue or is it about considering the concerns of different mindsets and getting along as a nation of essentially good people?
We must consider and prioritize some issues, obviously. We should however, not put ourselves in a position to create a law that fosters hate, confrontation and payback potentional. That is common sense.
But maybe we need The Supremes to declare that common sense is no longer necessary for the public welfare. Governmental assistence will help us decide what is best to placate our tirades against extremists or should we be limiting extreme government so that we deflate the need for extremists to segment and to qualify the general public.
Which of the following boxes would you like to be categorized in? Technology allows cataloguing to be simple. Extremists are an easy read. The general public is much tougher to second guess even as their privacy and freedom itself becomes incensed with fear, rage and idealism all supporting our arrogance as a race of people.
I wonder if the Supreme Court thought thru their ruling? The net result is incendiary. Common sense says that is not good!
History tells us that occasionally enemies unite against an antagonist. Do you think the founding fathers all shared the same ideologies? At least one that we are all sure of anyway.
Petitioning government is a form of dissent. Why do people dissent? Because those people feel one way or another their voice is not being heard. They feel the government is not representing them. Wrong or right about their beliefs we should have the right to have a venue for dissent. All form of petitioning is asking the people (voters) to enact or repeal legislation. Asking the people to usurp the will of the legislators. Why? Because sometime going directly to the people will allow the voice of the people to be heard when supposed ‘representatives’ are not representing the people.
Now the Supreme Court is allowing a big chill on free people. A chill that big brother is watching who is dissenting. Want an enemies list, step forward and sign. When Jim Crowe laws were being instituting and if one wanted to petition government for redress, how useful would it have been for KKK members to find names and addresses who didn’t like such laws?
The Homosexual group that has waged this war wants to “OUT” signers and circulators. Let that cold chill breathe down their neck if they ever decide to sign in dissent against any legislation that wasn’t pro Homosexual rights. Eerily the same tactics waged by the KKK are being used by the Homosexual groups.
Reality check for the newer posters –
ALL of the major governments in the U.S.A. are ANTI-Democracy indirect minority rule gerrymander regimes — filled with left/right super-extremist control freak party hacks — with about 95 plus percent of them in de facto ONE party *safe seat* gerrymander areas — States, districts.
A plurality of the votes in a bare majority of the gerrymander areas = about 25 (or less) percent of the total votes for the rule by a gang of party hacks – i.e. in most legislative bodies in the U.S.A.
P.R. and App.V. — otherwise – get ready for gerrymander Civil WAR II — when the party hacks pass one more INTOLERABLE law.
See the U.K. 1773 Tea Tax Act and the U.S.A. 1854 Kansas Act (regarding slavery in the then Kansas territory — i.e. *bloody Kansas* — setup for the super-horrific Civil WAR in 1861-1865). Does history repeat ??? Does the Sun rise in the East and set in the West ???