Supreme Court: Washington Can Release Names of Ballot Signers

Thursday 24 June 2010

by: Les Blumenthal | McClatchy Newspapers | Report

Washington - A near unanimous Supreme Court today ruled Washington state can release the names of the roughly 138,000 people who signed ballot petitions to overturn a same-sex domestic partnership law.

The court found the Washington Public Records Act covered the release of referendum signatures and the state has a responsibility to promote "transparency and accountability" in the electoral process. The high court said release of the names of petitions signers would help "root out fraud" and "ferret out" invalid signatures that could result from simple mistakes.

The lone dissenting justice was Clarence Thomas.

Religious conservatives had sought to keep the signatures secret because they feared retaliation from gay rights groups. The state had argued the Public Records Act required the release of those signing initiative and referenda petitions.

At the heart of the legal dispute is Referendum 71, which sought to repeal the "anything but marriage" domestic partnership law approved by the Legislature.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

For god's sake, left-wing

Thu, 06/24/2010 - 13:29 — Mark_Mywords (not verified)

For god's sake, left-wing techies, get those names into a database with as much information about the signers as you can get.

We need to know who our enemies are and what they are doing.

CLARENCE, WHAT IS THE

Thu, 06/24/2010 - 13:34 — Anonymous (not verified)

CLARENCE, WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY!! Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter!! Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter!! Now we can REALLY believe in Global Warming! CLARENCE, WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY!!!!!

Does the state's

Thu, 06/24/2010 - 13:47 — Cliff (not verified)

Does the state's 'responsibility to promote "transparency and accountability" in the electoral process' call the secret ballot into question? Why is the U.S. Supreme Court deciding what the Washington state public records law requires, anyway?

How you vote is always

Thu, 06/24/2010 - 15:11 — Anonymous (not verified)

How you vote is always secret. That you did or did not vote is public information. (Just ask Meg Whitman about that)

Whether your politics are

Thu, 06/24/2010 - 15:55 — Marcus Darnley (not verified)

Whether your politics are left or right, believe me, malefactors on the other side of the political divide will find this useful in future blacklisting crusades. No need to call people to testify in front of HUAC, no need to require a loyalty oath- public records can reveal who to persecute. I can easily hear Joe McCarthy (or Karl Rove) saying "we need to know who our enemies are and what they are doing." This time around, Clarence Thomas is actually the lone defender of individual 1st amendment rights.

Your vote is secret, BUT --

Thu, 06/24/2010 - 16:36 — Patricia (not verified)

Your vote is secret, BUT -- not your signature on a petition. When you sign a petition asking that an initiative be placed before the voters, the authorities must be able to confirm that you are registered to vote in whatever district you say you live in. Right wing pundits are always screaming about voter fraud. How can they then turn around and argue that we have no right to know how some "Manchurian Candidate" issue came to occupy a spot on our ballot?

Does anybody read anymore?

Thu, 06/24/2010 - 16:51 — Mike Strong (not verified)

Does anybody read anymore? With comprehension? I mean that as a real observation. We 've become so careless about the content and so quick to spout off. I don't think we really even care anymore what the topic is, we just seem to want to get down and yelp about it.

This is NOT about secret ballots - this is about public petitions which the petitioners are trying to keep secret. The issue is about who is trying to push legislation, not who is in the voting booth. Duh!

Petitions are a matter of public record. Petitions are not votes in a voting booth. They are a public declaration of allegence and intent. Petition. Petition. Petition. Petitions routinely get challenged for the legitimacy of signatures because they are open public records.

Here are extracts quoted from the article "ballot petitions" and "initiative and referenda petitions" - A "ballot petition" is a petition to put something or someone on a ballot. Once on a ballot, the VOTE is a secret vote. The ballot itself will be a secret ballot. But the people pushing to place something on the ballot may not do so in secret because the people (who vote in secret) need to know who is behind the measure they are voting on.

If you have to hide what you

Thu, 06/24/2010 - 16:53 — Anonymous (not verified)

If you have to hide what you think or do, you're a coward.

FASCIST court. Secret

Thu, 06/24/2010 - 19:25 — Anonymous (not verified)

FASCIST court. Secret government. Public private lives.

Not only should petition

Thu, 06/24/2010 - 19:56 — Don (not verified)

Not only should petition signers names be public, as the court has ruled, but every person organization and corporation name who contributed to promote or defeat a proposition should be public, as well. Supporters of the anti-Gay Proposition 8 in California oppose this transparency, as well, but hiding the money trail is just asking for fraud and stealth manipulation by deep pocket organizations.

Un ah murkin? Nonsense! That's how it was done back in th' day...