Jolt
Monday Jolt: R-71 Names Must be Public
Today's Loser: Misleading Analogies
Anti-gay activists lost their case against the state today—Doe v. Reed—when Federal District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma ruled they did not have the right to hide the names of people who signed the petition to get R-71 on the ballot. R-71 was the losing 2009 referendum that attempted to overturn the state's domestic partnership laws.[pullquote]Their fantasy of oppression strikes me as homophobic itself—as if somehow gays are ruling class power brokers.[/pullquote]
The anti-gay rights group, Protect Marriage Washington, was not, as they claimed in their briefs' sweeping spurious analogies, akin to civil rights activists in the 1950s or fringe socialists who might face reprisals for trying to undo gay rights. (Their fantasy of oppression strikes me as homophobic itself—as if somehow gays are ruling class power brokers.)
The Court made PMW's delusion clear, stating in today's ruling:
The US Supreme Court ruled against PMW last year saying petition signatures needed to be public in general. (Republican Washington Sate Attorney General Rob McKenna argued before the court that the R-71 names should be made public.) But the court gave the group a potential out by saying signature gatherers could seek exemptions on a case by case basis if they could show that making the names public would endanger signers' safety.
Judge Settle dismissed that notion today.
Today's second loser: Washington State domestic-violence victims.
The Vancouver, WA Columbian reported today that the state's Department of Social and Health Services may cut 75 percent from all state-funded domestic violence programs next year in an effort to help close a $1.4 billion statewide budget shortfall.
DSHS told providers that it plans to cut $4.7 million from the state's annual $6.1 million domestic violence shelter program, plus $83,000 from the state domestic violence prevention program. The DV programs fund shelters, hotlines, counselors, and educators across the state.
Anti-gay activists lost their case against the state today—Doe v. Reed—when Federal District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma ruled they did not have the right to hide the names of people who signed the petition to get R-71 on the ballot. R-71 was the losing 2009 referendum that attempted to overturn the state's domestic partnership laws.[pullquote]Their fantasy of oppression strikes me as homophobic itself—as if somehow gays are ruling class power brokers.[/pullquote]
The anti-gay rights group, Protect Marriage Washington, was not, as they claimed in their briefs' sweeping spurious analogies, akin to civil rights activists in the 1950s or fringe socialists who might face reprisals for trying to undo gay rights. (Their fantasy of oppression strikes me as homophobic itself—as if somehow gays are ruling class power brokers.)
The Court made PMW's delusion clear, stating in today's ruling:
Doe has not and cannot with any credibility analogize their situation to that of a small group of rank and file members of the [Socialist Workers Party] or the NAACP...
Doe has not supplied competent evidence or adequate authority to support its claim that the R-71 signers constitute a fringe organization with unpopular or unorthodox beliefs or one that is seeking to further ideas that have been'historically and pervasively rejected and vilified by both this country's government and its citizens. ...[pullquote]Doe has not and cannot with any credibility analogize their situation to that of ... the NAACP[/pullquote]
Doe has failed to supply sufficient, competent evidence that the publically known donors--as active supporters of R-71--have experienced sufficient threats, harassment, or reprisals based on the disclosure of their information in connection to R-71 that would satisfy the reasonable probability standard that Doe must meet in this case. ...
Doe asked the Court to grant an exemption to the PRA based on a few experiences of what Doe believes constitutes harassment or threats, the majority of which are only connected to R-71 by speculation. If Doe's position were correct, then . . . anyone could prevail under such a standard in the context of referenda, which are often heated, regardless of the subject matter. Indeed, if a group could succeed in an as-applied challenge to the PRA by simply providing a few isolated incidents of profane or indecent statements, gestures, or other examples of uncomfortable conversations that are not necessarily even related or directly connected to the issue at hand, disclosure would become the exception rather than the rule.
The US Supreme Court ruled against PMW last year saying petition signatures needed to be public in general. (Republican Washington Sate Attorney General Rob McKenna argued before the court that the R-71 names should be made public.) But the court gave the group a potential out by saying signature gatherers could seek exemptions on a case by case basis if they could show that making the names public would endanger signers' safety.
Judge Settle dismissed that notion today.
Today's second loser: Washington State domestic-violence victims.
The Vancouver, WA Columbian reported today that the state's Department of Social and Health Services may cut 75 percent from all state-funded domestic violence programs next year in an effort to help close a $1.4 billion statewide budget shortfall.
DSHS told providers that it plans to cut $4.7 million from the state's annual $6.1 million domestic violence shelter program, plus $83,000 from the state domestic violence prevention program. The DV programs fund shelters, hotlines, counselors, and educators across the state.
