Judge shields signatures in gay rights referendum
09.11.2009 8:54am EDT
(Olympia, Wash.) A federal judge on Thursday ordered the state of Washington to keep shielding the identities of people who signed petitions to force a vote on expanded benefits for gay couples.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma granted the preliminary injunction involving petitions for Referendum 71 while a related case moves forward on the constitutionality of the state public records act.The referendum, sponsored by a group called Protect Marriage Washington, asks voters to approve or reject the “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law that state lawmakers passed earlier this year.
In his ruling, Settle said he was “not persuaded that waiver of one’s fundamental right to anonymous political speech is a prerequisite for participation in Washington’s referendum process.”
Brian Zylstra, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, said that the judge’s decision “is a step away from open government.”
“When people sign a referendum or initiative petition, they are trying to change state law,” he said. “We believe that changing state law should be open to public view.”
A spokesman for the state attorney general’s office, which is representing Reed in the case, said they are weighing whether to appeal the preliminary injunction.
At a hearing before Settle last week, attorneys for Protect Marriage had argued that referendum signers’ names and addresses should be exempt from the public records disclosure law because release of the information would put them at risk of harassment, amounting to an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights.
Referendum campaign organizer Larry Stickney said he’s already been subjected to threats and harassment for his involvement in the effort. The campaign also said it has heard from supporters who didn’t want to sign the petition for fear of reprisals.
However, Assistant Attorney General Jim Pharris told the judge that Protect Marriage hasn’t shown significant harm beyond rude comments or phone calls – nothing that would “be appropriate to overturning the state’s strong tradition for open government.”
In his ruling, Settle agreed with the state that there must be measures in place to prevent referendum fraud. But because of the secretary of state’s process of verifying signatures, “at this time the court is not persuaded that full public disclosure of referendum petitions is necessary,” the judge said.
Protect Marriage turned in nearly 138,000 signatures in July, with 121,780 being accepted. That was about 1,200 more than the minimum required to qualify for the ballot.
Two gay rights groups, WhoSigned.Org and KnowThyNeighbor.org, previously said they would post the names online, which sparked the legal action to keep them private.
Protect Marriage was unsuccessful in an effort to keep the names of its political donors secret when the state Public Disclosure Commission ruled last month that donors weren’t exempt from campaign finance laws requiring disclosure.
Protect Marriage Attorney Stephen Pidgeon said he was still deciding whether to appeal that decision. But in the meantime, he said that he is happy that the names of those who signed the referendum petitions will not be released.
“The court has said, and said rightly, that the ability to participate, even anonymously, in the political process is a long and respected right in the United States,” he said.
The legal battle to keep the referendum off the Nov. 3 ballot ended Wednesday when supporters of expanded rights for domestic partners said they wouldn’t appeal a Thurston County Superior Court judge’s refusal to block the vote.
Washington Families Standing Together chairwoman Anne Levinson said the group will now focus on a campaign to ensure the law is retained by voters.
After passage by the Legislature, the law was supposed to take effect July 26, but the referendum campaign put it on hold. Now, it will take effect only if approved by voters.
If the law is rejected at the polls, previously enacted legislation on domestic partnerships would remain in place.
More than 5,900 domestic partnership registrations have been filed in Washington since the first law took effect in July 2007.





Let me get this straight. So people are allowed to vote against our rights, but don’t have to answer for their votes or signatures??? WTF? If you’re stupid enough to sign this petition to put the vote up to the public, then why are you scared of being found out?
Something just reeks to high heaven when people who don’t want to be identified sign for a bill to deny our rights. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Someone needs to sign up people that think that churches should not be tax exempt. This is f&#king retarded.
I completely agree with the statement made by ljrhodes. What bothers me is that these people fear being harassed and threatened. We should be trying to encourage people to accept us, not scaring them into submission. Fear tactics never work. Those who are resorting to fear and harassment of these people should be facing legal charges. This is, after all, a nation where people should be free to speak their conscience without reprisal. Anything less makes us no better than a terrorist or dictatorial state.
To add to what I’ve previously wrote; civil rights should never be up to a populous vote.
ljrhodes: I agree that the petition’s signers should not be anonymous, but what you said is not entirely accurate.
Our government often passes legislation by voice vote for simplicity and to save time; they do not always record who voted yes or no.
Isn’t it ironic while these faciest’s claim me are wanting “speciel rights” they are creating law that grants them legaly “speicel rights”.
The judge was obscenly out of line.His job is to withhold the laws NOT create them! This legal hack needs to be disbared ASAP!Does anyone know how to impeach a judge???
I agree that signing petitions and voting should be completely anonymous.
What I question is the right to vote on the rights of my fellow Americans.
The question seems to be are Gay Americans entitled to the full protections and obligations of American citizenship?
Are we allowed to have familes too, or are we supposed to “jump the broom”?
Well it appears that the policy of “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell has its place at times for the safety of the people accorrding to the situations at hand. Perhaps, in the reevaluation of that policy and all other issues of privacy; choice and safety should be priortized.
At a hearing before Settle last week, attorneys for Protect Marriage had argued that referendum signers’ names and addresses should be exempt from the public records disclosure law becauseTHEY’RE FU*KING COWARDLY BIGOTS WHO WOULD JUST AS LIKELY WEAR WHITE SHEETS, BURN CROSSES IN OUR YARDS, AND DRAG US BEHIND PICKUP TRUCKS. Bet you the judge himself is one of the signers.
We need laws that say the legislature has the final say in making law. Or, laws can be vetoed by a governor, or if the law is deemmed unconstitutional, can be overuled by a court. We do have, afterall, a representative democracy. Systems of checks and balances. If you want to hold a referendum for a re-vote in the legislature, ok, but not a referendum to veto the vote of the legislature. Signatures gathered for a referendum are like the signatures of legislators when signing on to a bill, are not done in secret. The only secret ballot we have is when we vote in an election. By the way, are referendums constitutional?
It seems that Roy Moore isn’t the only judge to have a somewhat biased approach to issues.I don’t mean to paint all with the same brush , but I must admit I’d love to know his religious inclinations ; if any.
is it gonna take more than 200 years like it did with the slavery of blacks for us to marry who we love. why does it matter if gays marry? these people who are petitioning obviously don’t care about the future generation’s of their children.