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.