This Washington
McKenna: "This is a Landmark Case."
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna did a conference call with reporters this morning to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Doe v. Reed, in which the high court ruled that petitions, and the signatures on them, are public records. Washington's public disclosure law allows a list of specific exemptions, but petitions are not among them.
McKenna called it a "landmark case," explaining that it was the "first time the court has ruled on what it means to sign a petition, and they came down squarely on the side of transparency."
The Doe v. Reed case arose out of an attempt by opponents of gay rights to repeal state laws (passed successively by the legislature in 2007, 2008, and 2009) that had expanded domestic partnerships to give gay couples all the legal rights and responsibilities of straight couples.
Gay rights activists tried to "out" people who signed petitions for the measure, known as R-71, and the R-71 folks went to court to keep the signatures secret.
Arguing that people who signed R-71 would be subject to harassment, the R-71 supporters brought two claims to federal district court in Tacoma: First, that petitions should be exempted from public disclosure in general because the possibility of intimidation will chill First Amendment rights to political speech. And second, if the court didn't go for that broad argument, that R-71 petitions should be protected specifically.
The district ruled in their favor on the first count, but did not rule on the second count. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California overturned the ruling on petitions and today, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling held out the possibility that the "opponents of disclosure" (as McKenna calls them) could still shield the signatures on R-71: There is a Supreme Court standard that permits exemptions if the people seeking an exemption can prove disclosure will threaten their safety. It's a very high standard related to the civil rights movement, when opponents of civil rights bombed integrated Greyhound buses, bashed people's heads with wooden Coke crates, and murdered civil rights workers.
McKenna doesn't think the petitioners in this case have a good chance of meeting that standard. He said, "in their arguments they did not bring forward nearly enough evidence" adding that the campaign finance records have already made the names of donors to the R-71 cause public and there was no evidence of serious harassment.
McKenna also differntiated between the organizers of R-71 and people who signed the petition. He said the harassment had to be against "average petition signers" and said there is no evidence of that.
James Bopp, lead counsel for Protect Marriage Washington, the group that is trying to block the release of R-71 signatures, issued this statment today:
McKenna, flaunting his victory for the state's public disclosure laws, said he would now ask the Thurston County Superior Court—which has an injunction against releasing the names on six unrelated initiatives (where "there is no question of threats")—to lift that injunction.
Reporters asked Secretary of State Sam Reed, who was also on the call, whether the ruling might dissuade people from signing petitions in the future now that their signatures may be made public. Reed's response: "No. This issue has been out there. We've made it quite clear where we are on this issue and from the comments of the justices it seemed clear they were going to rule in our favor and we've just had a huge number of signatures turned in. At least six initiatives are already likely to make the ballot" this November.
McKenna called it a "landmark case," explaining that it was the "first time the court has ruled on what it means to sign a petition, and they came down squarely on the side of transparency."
The Doe v. Reed case arose out of an attempt by opponents of gay rights to repeal state laws (passed successively by the legislature in 2007, 2008, and 2009) that had expanded domestic partnerships to give gay couples all the legal rights and responsibilities of straight couples.
Gay rights activists tried to "out" people who signed petitions for the measure, known as R-71, and the R-71 folks went to court to keep the signatures secret.
Arguing that people who signed R-71 would be subject to harassment, the R-71 supporters brought two claims to federal district court in Tacoma: First, that petitions should be exempted from public disclosure in general because the possibility of intimidation will chill First Amendment rights to political speech. And second, if the court didn't go for that broad argument, that R-71 petitions should be protected specifically.
The district ruled in their favor on the first count, but did not rule on the second count. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California overturned the ruling on petitions and today, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling held out the possibility that the "opponents of disclosure" (as McKenna calls them) could still shield the signatures on R-71: There is a Supreme Court standard that permits exemptions if the people seeking an exemption can prove disclosure will threaten their safety. It's a very high standard related to the civil rights movement, when opponents of civil rights bombed integrated Greyhound buses, bashed people's heads with wooden Coke crates, and murdered civil rights workers.
McKenna doesn't think the petitioners in this case have a good chance of meeting that standard. He said, "in their arguments they did not bring forward nearly enough evidence" adding that the campaign finance records have already made the names of donors to the R-71 cause public and there was no evidence of serious harassment.
McKenna also differntiated between the organizers of R-71 and people who signed the petition. He said the harassment had to be against "average petition signers" and said there is no evidence of that.
James Bopp, lead counsel for Protect Marriage Washington, the group that is trying to block the release of R-71 signatures, issued this statment today:
"Supporters of traditional marriage have been subject to death threats, vandalism, and even the loss of their jobs merely for exercising their right to free speech. We are confident that the District Court will agree that these tactics have no place in the discussion of marriage and will prevent the release of the personal information on those who support traditional marriage."
McKenna, flaunting his victory for the state's public disclosure laws, said he would now ask the Thurston County Superior Court—which has an injunction against releasing the names on six unrelated initiatives (where "there is no question of threats")—to lift that injunction.
Reporters asked Secretary of State Sam Reed, who was also on the call, whether the ruling might dissuade people from signing petitions in the future now that their signatures may be made public. Reed's response: "No. This issue has been out there. We've made it quite clear where we are on this issue and from the comments of the justices it seemed clear they were going to rule in our favor and we've just had a huge number of signatures turned in. At least six initiatives are already likely to make the ballot" this November.
