Supreme Court on R-71: Names on anti-gay rights petition must be made public

[racaulk]

Supreme Court on R-71: Names on anti-gay rights petition public

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the names of people who signed petitions in an attempt to overturn a new gay rights law in Washington must be made public, a victory for state officials who said the case was a test of open government laws.

Justices ruled 8-1 in a case called Doe V. Reed. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

They heard oral arguments in Washington, D.C., April 28.

"This is a good day for transparency and accountability in elections--not just in Washington but across our country," Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna said. "We're pleased the Supreme Court ruled in favor of disclosure, upholding the public's right to double-check the work of signature gatherers and government -- and giving them the ability to learn which voters are directing the state to hold an election on a new law. Citizen legislating is too important to be conducted in secret."

<---snip--->

Link: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/421643_supco14.html

You can read the full SCOTUS decision here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf

Referendum 71 was on the ballot in Washington state in November 2009 and was an attempt to prevent the "everything but marriage" law passed by the state legislature earlier that year from going into effect. If you recall, the group that pushed Referendum 71 on the voters argued that the signers of the petitions that placed that referendum on the ballot should be allowed their anonymity for fear of personal retribution from "violent homofascists." Personally, I am glad the SCOTUS saw through that bogus argument and shot it down in an 8-1 (!!!) decision.

Joe Jervis at Joe.My.God. states "The Court's decision, of course, has far reaching implications for the transparency of the referendum process and campaign finance laws nationwide. So SUCK it, NOM! This is a GREAT day for LGBT Americans and the democratic process."

I couldn't agree more. :-)

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Lochloosa]

2. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

When will that man just go away?

[racaulk]

3. Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with him for the long haul.

I can easily see Thomas going out like Rehnquist, staying on the court until his dying breath.

[Unvanguard]

4. The headline is inaccurate, and the news is not as good as it could be.

Protect Marriage Washington presented two arguments: first, that the disclosure requirements were unconstitutional as applied to referendums in general, and second, that the disclosure requirements were unconstitutional as applied to Referendum 71 in particular, because of the potential for backlash and intimidation.

The Supreme Court rejected ONLY the first argument. It did not rule on the second one, because the district court issued its original injunction barring disclosure on the first argument, not the second one. So Protect Marriage Washington might still win, on a narrower ground. The liberal justices and Scalia seemed very skeptical of their argument, though, and together that's a majority, so their chances are not great.