Court refuses to keep petitioner IDs private

[BR_Parkway]

Source: Yahoo, AP

WASHINGTON – People who sign petitions calling for public votes on controversial subjects don't have an automatic right to hide their names, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday as it sided against Washington state voters worried about harassment because of their desire to repeal that state's gay rights law.

The high court ruled against Protect Marriage Washington, which organized a petition drive for a public vote to repeal the state's "everything-but-marriage" gay rights law.

Petition signers wanted to hide their names because of worries of intimidation. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to keep their names secret. The Supreme Court stepped in and temporarily blocked release of the names until the high court could make a decision.

The court now says disclosing names on a petition for a public referendum does not chill the signer's freedom of speech enough to warrant overturning the state's disclosure law.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100624/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_domestic_partnership

---

8-1 Decision as well

[SoxFan]

1. The SIGNERS are worried about intimidation?

Um, yeah, ok...

[BR_Parkway]

5. Yeah, the anti-gay folks want to hide behind their bigory faceless

and nameless, seems they get upset when they get called on it.

Not sure how this is going to impact the decision in Maine - NOM wants to hide a bunch of info - most likely because it would show how heavily involved the Mormon church is in all of this.

[Rage for Order]

12. Is signing a petition to put the issue on the ballot evidence of homphobia?

What if you think equal rights has a high probability of succeeding if put to a public vote, so you sign a petition to have it appear on the next statewide ballot? How does one discern the intent of the person signing the petition to put the matter to a public vote? For this reason I don't find intimidation likely, and I think the court's ruling is correct.

[U4ikLefty]

13. Perhaps those afraid of "intimidation" are the bigots.

I would think that there are two major categories of folks who would sign it.

The first would be folks who think that the law didn't go far enough. For the most part, I don't see this group suing to keep their names from the public.

The second would be folks that want to take the rights already granted by the current law. I can see why many of them would sue to keep their names from getting out there...cause they don't want to be called what they are "bigots".

I agree with the intent of your post, that the ruling was correct. But I can see a reason why SOME would want to sue for secrecy.

[Rage for Order]

14. I have no doubt that Protect Marriage Washington are bigots

But I don't think that's the case with everyone who signed the petition. At any rate, I think the court made the right decision.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, that's excellent news!

Petitions are public documents, and the signers sign a public document. There's no way they should be protected from disclosure of their signatures on that document.

For once, the SCOTUS got one right.

:applause:

[Renew Deal]

3. Clarence Thomas may be the single worst justice in the history of this nation.

Only dissenter.

[sui generis]

4. I just can't separate him from the Dinosaurs episode

"What 'Sexual' Harrass Meant"

they got the dinosaur part right, fer sure.

[Kber]

7. Of course he was

[frebrd]

6. K&R! Finally! Fantastic! eom

[Dogtown]

8. Good decision n/t

[cyr330]

9. Excellent!

Let those ugly motherfuckers have their names posted, so we can all know what stupid assholes they are!

[Ed Barrow]

10. k&r

[w4rma]

11. Good. I want to know if the signers really exist. (nt)