Referendum 71: US Supreme Court Judge Blocks Release Of Names In Gay Rights Ballot Fight

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has temporarily blocked Washington state officials from releasing the names of people who signed a ballot measure on gay rights.

Kennedy's ruling Monday temporarily blocks a federal appeals court ruling last week that ordered the release of the names. Kennedy said his order would remain in effect while he considers a request by a group, Protect Marriage Washington, to reverse the appeals court ruling.

The case involves Referendum 71, a ballot initiative that asks Washington voters to approve or reject the state's "everything but marriage" law, which grants registered domestic partners the same legal rights as married heterosexuals.

Protect Marriage Washington circulated a petition to put the domestic partnership law before the voters. Under the Washington state constitution, voters have the power to reject any law through the referendum process.

In September, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle temporarily barred state officials from releasing the identities of those who signed the referendum petitions. Settle held that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers.

Gay rights supporters and open-government groups sought to disclose the names, saying that signers should be identified so the public knows who is behind Referendum 71.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Settle's decision last week. The appeals court said Thursday that Washington's secretary of state can release the names and addresses of people who signed petitions calling for a public vote.

Despite the appeals court ruling, the names weren't immediately released because a state court order remained in effect. A Superior Court judge in Olympia, Wash., is set to hear arguments Tuesday on how to respond to the appeals court decision.

In appealing to Kennedy to intervene, Protect Marriage Washington argued that state officials had suddenly changed a long-standing practice of keeping confidential the identities of those who signed referendum petitions. The group said signers of the petition fear hostile confrontations from gay rights supporters and noted that their campaign manager had received death threats.

James Bopp Jr., a lawyer who represents the group, said releasing the names of those who signed the petition would make the group's appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling moot.

Janelle Guthrie, a spokeswoman for Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, said state officials were merely defending the state's public records law.

The attorney general's office argued in court that there's little evidence of threats or harassment amounting to more than a few rude phone calls.

State officials filed a 39-page response with the Supreme Court on Monday, arguing there is no basis to overturn the appeals court decision.

Comments

[Durango]

Why are the federal Courts even involved in this.

This is clearly a state issue. The First Amendment claim is laughable on the face of it.

So where are all the "Conservatives" decrying the erosion of States rights?

Like I said This is The Stupidest F@#KING Thing have Ever Heard.

[Liberal Angel]

Seconded.

[Artemis34]

For all the trolls decrying "gay marriage"

This is "domestic partnership" in Washington, so shvt up!

[Durango]

Stephen Colbert has a segment n his show entitled "The Stupidest F@#KING Thing I Have Ever Heard."

When you sign a petition for a referendum on an issue, or to get it on the ballot, of course it is public information.

Otherwise why would anyone bother to actually collect names for petitions? It would be far easier just to make them up. kinda like they did in Iran.

Stupidest F@#KING Thing i Have Ever Heard..

[DonJM]

People who want to deny others their civil rights often like to do so in secret, hiding their identities.

[bannorhill]

So what is next? Do we publish the names and voting records of every voter?

[Durango]

This is a joke right?

Go down to your county clerk. Ask to see a copy of the voting rolls. Look at it. You will see everyone who is registered to vote's name will be there.

But probably not yours, Because you don't have the faintest idea how elections are held in this country.

[Liberal Angel]

It's called disclosure, and verification. The law says that the names must be disclosed, so why do you not support the law here?

[Artemis34]

It is the law in the State of Washington that the petitions form part of the PUBLIC record.

You have NO reasonable expectation of privacy in signing a petition.

Want secrecy? Don't sign petitions, don't try to get referendums on anything.

[Artemis34]

We know who these people are.

Conservative Republicans, Mormons, Catholics, some fundamentalist Christians and a few unaffiliated FRight Wing paranoids.

They're many of the same people who gave money to Prop H8 and that is public. As I recall there were people and businesses from Washington on the Prop H8 lists.

If in doubt, ask the people. Ask them if they put a rainbow and / or HRC equality sign in the business to show solidarity on gay rights.

I use the HRC shopping guide in Washington too. http://www.hrc.org/buyersguide2009/

[Artemis34]

If you know of Churches supporting this anti human rights cr@p, challenge their tax exempt status

http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=178241,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf

Check
Organization is involved in a political campaign
Organization is engaged in excessive lobbying activities

Challenge the Catholic Church's use of the Knights of Columbus to launder money.

See how they are trying to get around IRS guidelines:
http://www.protectmarriagewa.com/index.php/churches-politics

[jbarelli]

While I sympathize with your view here, the fact is that far more churches are supporting R-71 than are opposing it. The rules about when and where churches can get into politics work both ways.

The R-71 opposition has the Knights of Columbus (but not, apparently, any of the local Catholic Bishops).

R-71 supporters include the Washington Association of Churches, the Church Council of Greater Seattle, Associated Ministries of Washington, the United Church of Christ, and a long list of individual churches including (somewhat to my surprise) Seattle First Baptist.

Some of those churches are hosting phone banks in support of R-71. Since it's not a partisan issue, it appears that they are allowed to do that. Apparently, it crosses the line to endorse a partisan candidate, but supporting fairness, equality, kindness to others, well, that's kind of our "thing", and even the IRS isn't going to tell us otherwise.

And just to show that it really isn't a partisan issue, there are even a couple of Republican groups supporting R-71, and while nobody is really surprised that the Log Cabin Republicans are onboard, the Mainstream Republicans of Washington have also endorsed it.

[Artemis34]

I'm familiar with the United Church of Christ position.

If you teach Christian love, compassion, and tolerance, you do not have tell the flock how to vote on Ref. 71, they already know. Further, I know they have not funneled money, let alone millions, into opposing gay rights as the Catholic and Mormon Churches have.

If you are using tax free funds to CREATE political movements and for campaigning on how people should vote, then you should not have tax exempt status.

I don't think the church stating their position violates IRS rule. If the Catholic and Mormon Churches would just say "We value oppression and hate, therefore we oppose Ref. 71," then I think everyone would get that is their position.

But without the million funding their dumb ideas, the flocks would take it the same way the take the prohibition of birth control, not very seriously.

With their millions, lie campaigns and propaganda they are a partisan Republican tool and as such, they don't deserve tax exempt status.

[Artemis34]

Here are some names to start with:

http://www.protectmarriagewa.com/index.php/endorsements

Of course the Catholic Church's money laundering organization, the Knights of Columbus, is on the list.

[ntrepid]

This is all about people who do not have the courage of their own convictions. If I sign a petition, you can bet that I will stand behind it, regardless of who may know. We are dealing with an irrational segment of the populace here. Please remember, these folks take their lead from some imaginary friend in the sky. People that are too ignorant to think for themselves, too scared to look in the mirror.

[Artemis34]

If they are so convinced they are right, they should be PROUD that everyone knows.

[Artemis34]

We can just go to the "Faith & Freedom" events and film them

http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=[e-mail]

[Artemis34]

There is not legal basis for sealing the names. Washington’s Public Records Act requires names of petitions to be part of the public record. 5 days ago:

"Names of Ref 71 Petition Signers To Be Made Public
Jim Burroway
October 15th, 2009
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/10/15/15635
"A three-member panel of the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals has reversed a decison by U.S. district judge who blocked the release of the names of those who signed the petitions putting Referendum 71 on the Washington Ballot. Referendum 71 asks voters to approve or reject Washington’s domestic partnership law.

Washington’s Public Records Act requires names of petitions to be part of the public record. Last month, Judge Ben Settle in Tacoma set aside that law and approved Protect Marriage Washington’s request to keep the names hidden. Washington’s Attorney General’s Office argued that the law is important to ensure transparency in government and the release of these records is a vital part of that transparency."

[Durango]

AND THERE IS NO FEDERAL ISSUE HERE.

Man i thought the stupidity was going to end after last November. Boy was i overly optimistic.

[Artemis34]

Right. Kennedy is an activist judge just pulling it right out of this bvtt!

[NevadaLib]

people have the right to know their enemies and to boycott them they way they boycott others.

[Liberal Angel]

WTF!!! This is bu!!$#!t. Why are these people such cowards? It makes no sense that these people can vote on our rights, but they are immune from existing disclosure laws. When will we get justice in this country? But this is the nature of bullies. They are cowards. I don't see how they're going to be protected indefinitely. Their names will be known, and they will feel the wrath of the people they think aren't people.

[bannorhill]

Again....Same sex marriage is not a right.

Smelt v Orange Co and many other Federal Court rulings support that fact.

If you think otherwise then please cite one Federal Court ruling where same sex marriage has been ruled a right.

[Liberal Angel]

What is your deal? I get that you are anti-human rights, but seriously? Marriage is a right, and we are denied this. I realize you're incapable of understanding what justice and equality are, but this is just rediculous. This isn't about federal law. This is about state law in Washington. The ruling here, is in violation of existing Washington disclosure laws. For you to be a conservative, you sure use Big Government a lot in your non-arguments. Civil right should not be placed on the ballot. And you say that "same sex marriage is not a right", but you overlook that the 9th Amendment clearly states not all rights have been enumerated. Marriage is a right, and reguardless of your bigoted opinion, we will be equal citizens in ALL states soon enough.

[Artemis34]

The various rulings that strike down marriage bans, as with the Iowa court.

And this is "Domestic Partnership" in Washington!

There are many laws that substantiate the right to establish contracts / partnerships and legal obligations between two people.

You have no point whatsoever.

[Durango]

Who is talking about same Sex Marriage.?

This is an Open Government case.

Show me one ruling state, federal, police court where petitions for referendums have been done in secret?

The idea is ridiculous.

Jeez, get real.

[JohnBisceglia]

NO LAW EXISTS that hurts the religious terrorists behind REF-71 in the same way that LGBT families will be hurt if REF-71 is rejected. And who is there to protect us? Hardly the government that enables these votes on a human's legal worth (including families and children).

SELF-DEFENSE can be violent, but it is violence provoked, as a last resort when NO ONE is there to protect us. This is not "inciting violence" - What I am doing here is INCITING SELF-DEFENSE, as our last resort, when....in AMERICA....government enables religious groups to legally insert their "beliefs" (hate) into our LGBT homes and families, with the specific intention of HURTING ourselves and our loved ones.

Government enables religious groups to HURT us. READ THAT AGAIN. TO HURT US.

We WILL fight back. And knowing human nature and hacking, these names WILL be available to the public eventually. It's only a matter of time.

[cantwalkaway83]

The organization has a right to guarantee that the numbers are accurate for it to be placed on a ballot, however, they do not have the right to know who. Why should this organization have the ability (not saying that they would do so), to target and terrorize citizens who have vastly different views from their own. There could be independent verification without actually releasing the names to the public.

[Liberal Angel]

How can there be verification without releasing the names? People can't strip other people's rights away, and realistically expect that there won't be a backlash. These cowards can't hide for long.

[NevadaLib]

agreed. what are they worried about? the shame of their ignorance becoming public? this would imply they know they are wrong and know it would be detrimental to know they are deniers of others rights.

[bannorhill]

Rights?

Same sex marriage is not a right!

[Artemis34]

It is Washington state law. If they don't want the names released, then the measure can be off the ballot.

[Coloradem]

By this ruling one can assume that Justice Kennedy would hand out the sheets to the Klan members as they arrive at a rally....

[Matt Carter]

I have no love for the people trying to conceal the fact that they contributed to this piece of tripe, but yours in an unfair criticism of Kennedy. The Supreme Court is issuing a temporary injunction pending determination of the merits of the dispute. If they didn't, the controversy would be moot. The temporary order in no way reflects a substantive ruling, so don't get too caught up in what all of this might mean.

As a (possibly optimistic) footnote, I'd just note that Kennedy has historically come down on the side of gay rights whenever the question was before the Supreme Court. So let's not hang him out to dry just yet . . .

[Artemis34]

Sorry. It is the law. The court should uphold the law.