Knowthyneighbor.org is an organization that supports legal rights for gay people. It was created by two Massachusetts residents. They believe that is is useful to post searchable databases of the names and residence addresses of voters who sign ballot measure petitions in support of measures that injure gay people.
Knowthyneighbor.org has posted photocopies of the petition sheets submitted in Arkansas, on a proposal to make it illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children. Included is a searchable database. Any person visiting the web page can search for any particular potential signer. If the database finds that signer, then a clickable link takes the viewer to a photocopy of the particular petition sheet signed by that voter. Then, the viewer can see the appearance of that signer’s signature, and learn the signer’s date of birth, and the signer’s residence address.
The web page also has searchable data bases for similar anti-gay ballot measures in Florida and Massachusetts, and says soon it will post data for Washington. However, at least the Florida and Massachusetts links don’t go to an actual copy of a petition sheet. For Florida and Massachusetts, a viewer can search by either name or address to see if any particular person signed the ballot measure, but it is not possible to view the petition itself.
If the idea of searchable databases for petition signers spreads, it will become more difficult in the future to persuade people to sign petitions. In the 1940’s, newspapers sometimes published the names and addresses of people who signed petitions for the Communist Party or the Progressive Party, and the searchable database idea may spread from ballot measure petitions to petitions to qualify new parties for the ballot. Thanks to The Militant for this news.
Richard
Unfortunately, your claim that petitioners will have more difficulty collecting signatures fails to withstand empirical scrutiny. There is no evidence that petitioners have had more difficulty collecting signatures since the petitions were made public by KTN several years ago. Similarly, there was no evidence that KTN’s posting of signatures in FL, or AR (which you failed to note), have slowed down the initiative process.
For those interested in who signs petitions, I have a coauthored forthcoming article in Political Behavior that uses the KTN datasets for AR and FL ballot initiatives that I would be happy to share.
I strongly condemn this organization’s blatant bias and hatred of anyone who dissents from their view.
Like Hitler, they’ll never win over the masses.
#1, when you say “there is no evidence”, that leaves a reader wondering if anyone has studied KTN’s impact on voter willingness to sign petitions. Is there any evidence that it hasn’t made any difference? Or is there just a complete absence of any research?
Also, what percentage of the public even knows about the KTN searchable data base?
I know from ordinary interactions with people that more and more people do not want their residence addresses known to the public.
One thing that has surprised me is the easily available birth date information from our Secretary of State. When voter registration lists are purchased, that information is included. Anyone can purchase voter registration lists as long as they give a valid political reason. Physical address are also included, but not necessarily deliverable postal addresses. I guess I’m just crossing my fingers that all political activists will be non-malevolent. Well, that’s how it is in West Virginia.
What a bonanza for identity thieves — thousands of sheets of signatures and even a database look-up to find them. Now thieves can easily print bogus checks (with correct names and addresses) and sign them — with very accurate signatures.
How can a thief find out which bank a particular customer uses? That is so obvious it need not be stated.
There was utterly no reason to show the signatures instead of blacking the out (easy to do with PDF editing programs). If this system causes financial losses due to identity theft, it is conceivable that the Center for Artistic Revolution would be held liable.
Also, anyone who wishes to forge signatures on petitions now has a huge leg up.
When liberals want to be militant that is when the good old 2nd Amendment remedy comes into play. Maybe a petition to make signatures private will be the solution. In fact the U.S. Supreme Court states that individual states that you don’t have privacy protections can release names of signers. However states like California has privacy protections and names can’t be released. Yes the militant gays wanted to have names released from Prop8 and that failed.
Again – any petitions —
1. to have a tyrant monarchy in the U.S.A. with 100 percent taxes ???
2. to bring back slavery ???
3. to repeal the Constitution and esp. the Bill of Rights ???
4. to kill ABC-XYZ group of folks ???
etc.
i.e. *politically incorrect* New Age stuff ???
How many senile MORONS among the 9 SCOTUS folks — who are brain dead ignorant about hostile stuff and reactions to such stuff ???
# 4 How many occupy folks marching/camping on the lawns/sidewalks of the homes of the SCOTUS folks ???
Pingback: Opponents of Privacy for Petition Signers Post Photocopies of Signed Initiative Sheets | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
“Richard
Unfortunately, your claim that petitioners will have more difficulty collecting signatures fails to withstand empirical scrutiny. There is no evidence that petitioners have had more difficulty collecting signatures since the petitions were made public by KTN several years ago.”
Speaking as a person who travels around the country to gather petition signatures on a regular basis, I can tell you that having the names and addresses of people who sign petitions made public does make it more difficult to gather signatures. I’ve had quite a few people tell me that they won’t sign any petitions for this reason. If this becomes more common, I expect that this would cause even more people to not sign any petitions, therefore making ballot access more difficult than it already is.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote pointedly in his concurring opinion in Doe v. Reed why public disclosure of signatures collected to qualify ballot measures is necessary, and how it can embolden citizens in the U.S.
“There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self governance…Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.”