As noted earlier, a federal court in Washington state is considering whether the names and address of people who sign a Referendum petition, for the purpose of blocking a civil unions law from taking effect, should be considered public or private. On July 29, the judge had issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Secretary of State from releasing the names and addresses to the public.

On August 5, a group that wants to see the names and addresses of people who signed Initiative 1033 asked the Court to intervene. I-1033 advocates limits on taxes. The National Education Association wants to see who signed that petition. The Washington Coalition for Open Government supports the position that the petitions should be public. It makes an interesting analogy. If a bill were introduced in the legislature, the legislators who sponsored the bill would, of course, be identified. The analogy says that in the initiative and/or referendum process, it is particular voters who sign the petition who are sponsoring a “bill” (by analogy), and so they should be identified publicly as well.

The lawsuit is Protect Marriage Washington v Reed.

Detroit held its municipal election on August 4. Nine city councilors were to be elected at-large in a non-partisan election. The top 18 candidates go into a run-off. Monica Conyers, who had pleaded guilty to a felony earlier this year, had remained on the ballot, but she did not place among the 18 top candidates. If she had been elected, she could not have served in office and the city would have needed to hold a special election. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.

On August 4, U.S. District Court Judge Judith Herrera, a Bush Jr. appointee, ruled that New Mexico state officials cannot require a group to register as a “political committee”, just because it sent out mailings to voters criticizing several state legislators. The decision is New Mexico Youth Organized v Herrera, 08-1156, and is 30 pages.

New Mexico law says that any group that spends $500 on partisan political communications is a “political committee”, but the judge ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court has already established that a “political committee” is something that is either controlled by a candidate, or which has as its major purpose the nomination or election of a candidate.

Furthermore, the opinion says that the literature mailed by New Mexico Youth Organized is not unambiguously related to any campaign, just because it criticized the incumbents and because it was mailed in an election year.