« Environment - Potential regulation of emissions from wood-fired outdoor boiler continues to "shock and surprise" some legislators | Main | About the ILB - ILB entries now listed on Twitter »
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Courts - "Supreme Court takes up Wash. case involving disclosure of petition signatures: The case could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is private or whether the names of signers can be made public"
Next Wednesday, April 28, 2010, the SCOTUS will heard oral arguments in the case of Doe v. Reed. Here is the SCOTUSlaw WIKI page on the case, including dozens of amicus briefs, and the issues statement:
- (1) Whether the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers; and
(2) whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week will hear a Washington state case that could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is a private, political act or whether the names of those signers can be made public.There is much more in the lengthy story. Also today, Les Blumenthal of McClatchy Newspapers has this story, headed "Supreme Court to hear case on releasing referendum petition signatures."The case stems from the contentious battles over Referendum 71, in which traditional-marriage supporters sought to overturn an expanded state domestic-partnership law that grants "everything but marriage" benefits to gay and lesbian couples. The referendum passed at the ballot last fall.
Those who backed the repeal effort are trying to shield the petitioners' names from disclosure, saying they could be harassed if their identities are revealed. * * *
If the court rules it does, that would likely keep private not only Referendum 71 petitions but all referendum and initiative petitions in this state — and potentially those in two dozen other states that allow citizens to put measures on the ballot.
Across the country, legal scholars, governments and interest groups are watching the case closely.
About 25 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed, representing dozens of organizations. Those supporting disclosure of petitioner names include 23 states, media organizations (including The Seattle Times and most of the state's daily newspapers) and gay-rights groups. Those against disclosure include traditional-values organizations, think tanks and individual-rights groups. * * *
The Supreme Court has never ruled on what it means to sign a ballot-measure petition: Is it core political speech that can be anonymous, or is it a public process akin to legislators making law?
Representing those who want to keep the names secret is James Bopp Jr., an Indiana attorney who has filed about 100 lawsuits across the country challenging campaign-finance or disclosure rules. Bopp is working on behalf of Protect Marriage Washington, the group that sought to put Ref. 71 on the ballot and brought the case now before the Supreme Court.
"When public disclosure laws like those in Washington force people to reveal themselves, individuals cannot speak without worrying about threats to themselves, their families, or their jobs," he said.
Representing the state is Attorney General Rob McKenna, who calls the lawsuit a direct challenge to the transparency needed for people to trust their government.
The state's disclosure laws impose a "modest burden" on petition signers, compared with the "very compelling, very strong government and public interest in transparency, accountability and fraud protection," he said.
The ILB had an earlier entry on this case on Jan. 16, 2010 - scroll half-way down the page to the heading: "Making anti-same-sex petition signers' names secret."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 25, 2010 08:06 AM
Posted to Courts in general