The September 20 issue of The Militant, weekly newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party, has this editorial, condemning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that finds no privacy rights for people who sign petitions to place questions, candidates, or parties on the ballot. The decision, Doe v Reed, had been issued on June 24. The decision does say that if a group can show that it has a special need for privacy, it can make that argument and may possibly win an exception.
The Socialist Workers Party itself won a decision in 1982 in the U.S. Supreme Court, giving it protection against revealing the names and addresses of people who contribute money to the party. The decision also says the party need not report how it spends its campaign contributions, because if it did so, that would reveal the names and addresses of its employees.
The Socialist Workers Party chose not to submit an amicus curiae brief in Doe v Reed.
This couldn’t be weirder:
Conservative Clarence Thomas, the only agent of what SWP describes as “workers’ rights,” of what many others defend as a reasonable right of privacy and the freedom of association;
SWP, so slow at the draw that it completely forfeits any claim of righteous indignation over this awful decision by the Supremes.
So….political organizations should forfeit their right to indignation based on Dave’s ‘timeline’? Now, THAT’S weird!
The Militant has spoken out consistently for these rights for decades. A search of the Militant website attests to nothing else.