Citizens in Charge

As the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether signatures on the Referendum-71 petition in Washington state should be made public, a public opinion battle is heating up. Compelling arguments are surfacing on both sides of the issue, with each side calling on the High Court to rule in their favor.

Joe Matthews of the New America Foundation “Is Signing a Referendum Petition Like Voting?” Matthews comes down squarely in favor of making the names of people who signed the petition public, including allowing them to be posted on the internet. According to Matthews:

Washington state officials are siding with the referendum opponents in this matter, on the argument that petitions to the government are, by their very nature, public documents. I agree with the state of Washington and strongly disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court action to block the release of the petitions. Signatures on petitions are not the equivalent of a vote. They are much more like a vote in a legislative body, and such votes are public. A Washington state legislator, if he or she wanted to place a measure on the ballot, would have to record his decision with a public vote. When a citizen signs a petition to put a referendum or initiative on a ballot, that citizen is legislating—not voting….

The Supreme Court would be wise to reverse itself quickly and let the petitions released — so voters can see who signed Referendum 71 before an election.

At the Seattle Times, Bruce Ramsey takes the opposite view, arguing that
“Petition Signatures Should Be Protected”. Ramsey points out that the main impetus for signature privacy issue surrounding R-71 is not a concern for transparency in the initiative process, but is sparked by the subject of R-71:

All this came about because R-71 was promoted by the opponents of gay marriage. Their referendum petition outraged the supporters, particularly gay activists, who thought they had gay marriage in the bag. A couple of these (Knowthyneighbor.org and whosigned.org) threatened to get the names of the signatories and post them. This was a clear threat that people who signed the petitions would be harassed by their neighbors. It was made during the signature campaign, and it was quite clearly a device to intimidate people from signing, and keep the measure off the ballot. (And it almost worked.)

He goes on to note that whatever ruling the Supreme Court ultimately makes, its effects will be far reaching:

This is about the rules for disclosing names in any petition of initiative or referendum in the future.

No one knows what side the Court will come down on, but we agree with Ramsey that the precedent that is set will be far reaching.