Case stems from Washington State Petition That Tried to Protect Names of “Everything-but-Marriage” Repeal Petition Signers
BY DMITRY RASHNITSOV
Washington State voters were worried that they would be harassed after signing a petition to repeal the state’s “everything-but-marriage” gay rights law. They did not want their names revealed, however, the Supreme Court of the United States said that if you wanted to discriminate, you would have to do so with your real name.
“Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures,” said SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts. “Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot.”
The court ruled against a group called Protect Marriage Washington, which did not want its supports names revealed. The court ruled 8-1 with only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s majority opinion.
Roberts went on to say that the Supreme Court’s ruling affects all voter petitions, not just the Protect Marriage Washington one.
“Voters care about such issues, some quite deeply – but there is no reason to assume that any burdens imposed by disclosure of typical referendum petitions would be remotely like the burdens plaintiffs fear in this case,” Roberts said.
The case now goes back to the lower courts for further arguments.
“This is a good day for transparency and accountability in elections – not just in Washington but across our country,” said Rob McKenna, Washington State’s attorney general. “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.”
Justice Samuel Alito agreed the state law in general does not violate the Constitution, but said voters in this specific case and others may still be able to justify non-disclosure if they can rationally prove possible harassment.
Justice Thomas said he was dissenting because he felt it was a breach of people’s privacy and that by disclosing their names, it would keep some people from wanting to participate in the political process.
“In my view, compelled disclosure of signed referendum and initiative petitions under the Washington Public Records severely burdens those rights and chills citizen participation in the referendum process,” Thomas said. “Given those burdens, I would hold that Washington’s decision to subject all referendum petitions to public disclosure is unconstitutional because they will always be a less restrictive means by which Washington can vindicate its stated interest in preserving the integrity of its referendum process.”
Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire in 2009 had signed a bill approved by the legislature affording same-sex couples, as well as domestic partners over the age of 62, the same “rights, responsibilities, and obligations” given married spouses.
About 138,000 people had signed the petition to put a repeal of the bill to a vote on the ballot. Even though supports of repealing Washington’s “everything-but-marriage” law was put to the vote of the people, the citizens of Washington upheld it and left the laws alone.
Protect Marriage Washington sued to keep the names private and the case made its way all the way up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California. The 9th Circuit said that the names had to be revealed, but only an emergency stay by the SCOTUS kept the names private. The case now goes back to the 9th Circuit for additional arguments, but names are expected to be revealed by the end of the summer.
The case is Doe v. Reed, 09-559.
