Open records means just that -- so release the names on R-71

This editorial appears in the July 31, 2009, Yakima Herald-Republic.

It's clearly debatable: At what point does the state open records law threaten free speech?

But when it comes to the initiative process in this state, that's as far as it should go. Blocking the release of names signed on a statewide referendum -- as a federal judge did Wednesday -- does not remedy the situation. It only threatens the goal of a transparent democracy.

In question are the signatures to Referendum 71. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle issued a temporary restraining order blocking the release of those supporting the referendum, which challenges the latest expansion of domestic partnership rights. Protect Marriage Washington, the group backing the referendum, fears that public release of the petition signers' identities will place them at risk of harassment. This eventuality, the group argues, would present an unconstitutional infringement upon the signers' free speech rights.

Referendum backers claim harassment would come from gay rights supporters who have planned to publish online the names of everyone who signed the petitions. The gay rights backers say they simply want the public to be able to discuss with the petition signers the merits of expanding domestic partnership rights.

Earlier this year, state lawmakers approved what is known as the "everything but marriage" law, which places domestic partners on equal footing with married couples in all areas of state law, including sick leave to care for a partner, group insurance policies and adoption and child custody rights.

Religious conservatives countered with a petition drive to bring the matter to a public vote. Last week, R-71 backers submitted 138,000 signatures. State officials are determining if there are enough valid signatures to qualify the referendum for a place on the November ballot.

While the referendum's fate may be in question, we see no equivocation over the matter of whether the signatures of petition signers should be released to the public. The petitions clearly fall within the province of the state's public records law.

When the temporary restraining order came up Wednesday, the state declined to argue the matter. We expect the Attorney General's Office to take a different tact when it comes up again in court and deliver a spirited defense of the Public Disclosure Act.

We are sympathetic to the concerns voiced by referendum backers who foresee harassing phone calls resulting from public release of the signers' identities. But it also could be argued that if the situation was reversed and gay rights supporters were the ones petitioning voters on another matter -- let's say legalizing gay marriage -- wouldn't their signers fear harassment if their identities were released?

Open government demands open records. This is especially true when the validity of a referendum seeking to change how our state is governed depends on the identities of those inking their signatures in support of that change. And if someone decides to harass a petition signatory, let the police deal with that.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.