Referendum petition signers should be made public

POSTED ON Sunday, September 13, 2009 AT 09:50PM

Advanced Search

Referendum petition signers should be made public

Yakima Herald-Republic

Links

E-mail

Comments

More 'Opinion'

More Stories: Today's News | This Week

This editorial appears in the Sept. 14, 2009, Yakima Herald-Republic.

The state Attorney General's office is right in seeking an appeal of a federal judge's ruling that blocks release of the names and addresses of those who signed Referendum 71. What's at stake is a fundamentally important question of whether people who sign referendums in this state can do so anonymously or must be subject to the openness of Washington's public records act.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma ruled that those who signed petitions calling for a public vote on expanded domestic partnership benefits in Washington should be kept secret. The following day, Attorney General Rob McKenna said he would ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the decision. He also said he would urge the appeals court to lift the injunction and release the names.

Protect Marriage Washington, a network of religious conservative groups and individuals opposed to domestic-partner benefits, was behind the lawsuit to block releasing the names. The backers of Referendum 71 feared that those who had signed the petitions would face harassment and threats, thereby undermining their First Amendment right to free speech. They based these concerns on what gay-rights activists had vowed: to post and make searchable online the names and addresses of those who signed the petitions.

For their part, the gay-rights activists said they wanted to give their supporters a chance to contact petition-signers and champion their cause for equal treatment.

The federal judge's decision effectively calls into question the constitutionality of the state's open records act as it deals with the initiative and referendum process. Do citizens have a right to protect their identities when seeking to change state laws through a petition or referendum?

In his ruling, the federal judge noted he was "not persuaded that waiver of one's fundamental right to anonymous political speech is a prerequisite for participation in Washington's referendum process."

The judge, in part, based his argument on the procedures the state uses to verify petition signatures. The judge claimed its thoroughness makes the public release of names and addresses under the state's public records act unnecessary.

It's interesting to note that until the Secretary of State's office had confirmed in August that there were enough valid signatures to put Referendum 71 on November's ballot, Protect Washington Marriage had criticized the very procedures for verification that the federal judge had found so thorough. In fact, Protect Washington Marriage had urged its supporters to barrage the Secretary of State's office with e-mails calling for answers to unaddressed criticism of the way Sam Reed's workers were invalidating signatures.

We believe names of all who petition the state should be made public. We caution opponents of Referendum 71 to be civil in their discussions with petition proponents. For those petition signers who feel they are being harassed or threatened, there are criminal laws on the books to protect them, and these laws should be vigorously enforced.

While the federal judge may have a point when saying the public release of those signing referendums doesn't in itself preserve the sanctity of the process, the consequences of keeping them secret is far worse. It undermines the transparency in government that this state has long held dear.

This secretiveness also runs contrary to an American tradition dating back to the days of Patrick Henry when colonists stood up for what they believed in, signing pamphlets and petitions in hopes of bringing change to the way their lives were being governed. We see no reason to sweep this tradition aside.

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

Posted by Nick at 09/14/09 05:10AM Post ID#: #12680

Signatures on a referendum should be as secret as those on a ballot. After all, people who sign the petition are as much as voting for the cause the petition seeks. If they were against it, they wouldn't sign it - believe me, I know. I have had people tell me they were afraid of someone else knowing their true beliefs. This, to me, is PC nonsense and an example of the fear that is pervasive among many in our political system today, where "Progressive" libs seem to want retribution against anyone who disagrees with their own views.

There are only two reasons someone would want the names of petitions signers: 1. To build a data base of supporters for direct mailings and calls for money; 2. To harass or intimidate the signer because he/she is expressing their beliefs.

This is especially true with socially sensitive issues such as immigration or gay rights, which this latest flap is about. While gathering signatures for the E-Verify and no drivers licenses or voter rights for illegals, I have had to reassure some signers who were so concerned their support would be discovered by their bosses and they would be fired, (from DSHS or State DOL, for example) they were afraid to sign. I was always told that no one could access those signatures, that they were considered secret and that their rights to privacy would be infringed otherwise.

It's terrible when one is afraid to express an opinion and a choice, which is his/her 1st Amendment right to free speech.