GAY NEWS
Supreme Court Blocks Washington From Releasing Names of Anti-Gay Petitioners
By L. K. Regan
Published Oct 20, 2009
Published Oct 20, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court intervened Tuesday in the state of Washington's ongoing wrangling over a ballot measure intended to curtail the expansion of gay rights. The Court blocked state officials from releasing the names of people who petitioned to put the state's domestic partner law on the November ballot for a public referendum. Now, as the November election creeps closer, activists are anxiously waiting to see whether the Court will hear the case in full, or allow the names to be public.
In May of this year, Washington's legislature voted in favor of an expansion to the state's domestic partner law that came to be called the "everything but marriage" law. Washington has had domestic partnerships since 2007; these grant limited rights—hospital visitation, funeral and organ donation decisions, and inheritance—to registered couples. That original law has been expanded twice, first in 2008, when legislators added more shared property rights and parental guardianship, and again this year, when they extended benefits to partners of public employees and legalized adoption and child support rights. Washington has nearly 6,000 domestic partners legally registered and eligible for these extended benefits.
The expanded law instantly met with push-back, however. An anti-gay group, Protect Marriage Washington, put together a ballot measure that would put "everything but marriage" to the voters on the November ballot. With the shadow of Prop 8 in the recent past, gay-friendly Washingtonians worried that the measure might not pass. In an effort to apply community pressure, activists demanded the names of the more than 100,000 people who signed referendum petitions. The Washington Secretary of State, Sam Reed, was prepared to release the names to the public—until Protect Marriage Washington went to court to request they be sealed, arguing that signatories would be subject to harassment if their names were known. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, and said that the names were public information.
On Monday of this week, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the lower court's ruling and issued a stay, telling Reed to keep the names private while the Court considered whether to hear arguments in the case. The following day, the entire Supreme Court reiterated that stay, pending their decision on hearing the case. Washington Secretary of State Reed attempted to keep the order in perspective, calling it "simply preserving the status quo while opponents of disclosure get their full day in court," though he also vowed to "do our very best to uphold the voters' desire for transparent and accountable government."
For activists, the main concern is timing. Ballot measure R-71 is polling close, with a Survey USA poll earlier this month having it passing (in other words, affirming "everything but marriage") by a 45 to 42 margin, with 13 percent undecided. Voter turnout will be important, as will the last weeks of the campaign. Knowing the demographics of the petitioners could help to target outreach efforts, even if publishing names did nothing in itself to discourage the No-voters. With two weeks to the election and the Supreme Court undecided, it appears that the Yes on R-71 activists may have to carry on without that information.
In May of this year, Washington's legislature voted in favor of an expansion to the state's domestic partner law that came to be called the "everything but marriage" law. Washington has had domestic partnerships since 2007; these grant limited rights—hospital visitation, funeral and organ donation decisions, and inheritance—to registered couples. That original law has been expanded twice, first in 2008, when legislators added more shared property rights and parental guardianship, and again this year, when they extended benefits to partners of public employees and legalized adoption and child support rights. Washington has nearly 6,000 domestic partners legally registered and eligible for these extended benefits.
The expanded law instantly met with push-back, however. An anti-gay group, Protect Marriage Washington, put together a ballot measure that would put "everything but marriage" to the voters on the November ballot. With the shadow of Prop 8 in the recent past, gay-friendly Washingtonians worried that the measure might not pass. In an effort to apply community pressure, activists demanded the names of the more than 100,000 people who signed referendum petitions. The Washington Secretary of State, Sam Reed, was prepared to release the names to the public—until Protect Marriage Washington went to court to request they be sealed, arguing that signatories would be subject to harassment if their names were known. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, and said that the names were public information.
On Monday of this week, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the lower court's ruling and issued a stay, telling Reed to keep the names private while the Court considered whether to hear arguments in the case. The following day, the entire Supreme Court reiterated that stay, pending their decision on hearing the case. Washington Secretary of State Reed attempted to keep the order in perspective, calling it "simply preserving the status quo while opponents of disclosure get their full day in court," though he also vowed to "do our very best to uphold the voters' desire for transparent and accountable government."
For activists, the main concern is timing. Ballot measure R-71 is polling close, with a Survey USA poll earlier this month having it passing (in other words, affirming "everything but marriage") by a 45 to 42 margin, with 13 percent undecided. Voter turnout will be important, as will the last weeks of the campaign. Knowing the demographics of the petitioners could help to target outreach efforts, even if publishing names did nothing in itself to discourage the No-voters. With two weeks to the election and the Supreme Court undecided, it appears that the Yes on R-71 activists may have to carry on without that information.
HotMuscleFun wrote:
The creator's of our Country still say it better then any of us can...
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
~Thomas Jefferson
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
~Thomas Jefferson
“That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world”
~John Adams
While not a creator... it is the truth...
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
- Steven Weinberg
Oct 30 2:28 AM
McGay wrote:
Civil disobedience looks better every day. There's a lot of ways to go about it without getting violent. Tax strikes, for example.
Or, we could just go on with the way things are, so nobody gets hurt. :rolleyes
Oct 21 1:19 PM
Ryan_Andrew wrote:
Oh sure... I make a donation to a candidate and my info is now public... worse seek to put someone on the ballot my signature is public but they get to hide now? bogus. I fear this article is right. Prop 8 all over again.
Oct 21 10:29 AM