« Courts - More on: SCOTUS rejects 7th Circuit ruling re Joseph Corcoran | Main | Law - "Facebook, MySpace Divide Along Social Lines" »

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Courts - More on "State of Washington federal judge shields signatures in gay-rights referendum"

The ILB entry from Sept. 13th includes this quote from the NYT:

The case is the latest filed by a conservative lawyer, James Bopp Jr., seeking to stop the publicizing of the names of those who oppose same-sex marriage and other gay rights initiatives. In January, Mr. Bopp argued — unsuccessfully — for a preliminary injunction protecting the names of the donors behind Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California. The donors names were released, though Mr. Bopp continues his legal challenge.
Yesterday the Washington Post published this AP report by Rachael La Corte. Some quotes:
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked Washington state officials from releasing the names of people who signed referendum petitions to bring expanded rights for gay couples up for a public vote in November.

The court's action maintains a hold placed Monday by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who temporarily blocked a federal appeals court ruling that had ordered the release of the names. Justice John Paul Stevens was the only member of the court who indicated he would have turned down the stay request.

The court said its order would remain in effect while it decides whether to take up a request by Protect Marriage Washington, the group that wants to reverse the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Referendum 71 asks voters to approve or reject the so-called "everything but marriage" law, which grants registered domestic partners the same legal rights as married couples. While most domestic partners are gay and lesbian couples, under state law opposite-gender seniors also can register as domestic partners.

Conservative Christian groups that sponsored R-71 want to keep the signed petitions out of public view because they fear harassment from gay-rights supporters, some of whom have vowed to post the names of petition signers on the Internet.

The conservative groups lost a fight to keep the identities of their campaign donors secret. * * *

James Bopp, Jr., the lead attorney for Protect Marriage Washington, issued a statement Tuesday saying that the Supreme Court "took a large step forward today in protecting the rights of citizens who support a traditional definition of marriage to speak freely."

"No citizen should ever have their personal property destroyed or receive death threats for exercising their right to engage in the political process," he said.

Rick Hasen of Election Law Blog writes about the SCOTUS action here. He notes:
The stay remains in effect until a petition for cert. is considered in timely fashion, with the result being that the information will not be disclosed until (at the least) after the election. That is somewhat problematic, not for formal mootness grounds, but because the interests in disclosure are different before and after the election.
He also clarifies that "The Washington case differs [from the California Prop. 8 case] in that these are ballot measure signers, not contributors."

Finally, from the State of Washington Olympian, an editorial published Oct. 19, before the SCOTUS acted -- it begins:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California restored the integrity and legal validity of the state’s Public Records Act last week in a ruling that open government advocates eagerly awaited.

The three-judge panel reversed a ruling from U.S. District Court in Tacoma by Judge Benjamin Settle, who had opined that the state didn’t have to release the names of voters who signed petitions to place Referendum 71 on the Nov. 3 ballot.

The appeals court ordered public release of the petition sheets as public records, striking a blow for open, transparent government and brushing aside a major challenge to the constitutionality of the state’s Public Records Act.

Referendums and initiatives are part of the state’s open political process, a very public act that allows citizens to participate directly in law-making. When someone signs a petition to place a referendum or initiative on the ballot, they are participating in that open legislative process, not signing some sort of secret ballot.

Just as citizens have the right to know which legislators sign on to sponsor bills, they have the right to know which of their fellow citizens are sponsoring referendums and initiatives.

The circuit court reaffirmed the state’s time-honored and legally grounded policy of releasing the names of people who sign petitions.

The circuit court in California got it right, and the residents of the state of Washington are the benefactors.

See also these SCOTUSlaw Blog entries from Oct. 19th and Oct. 20th.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 21, 2009 09:13 AM
Posted to Courts in general