From the Sec. of State’s Office:
The U.S. Supreme Court recently announced that it will decide on January 15, 2010, whether to accept or reject the appeal of last fall’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld Washington State’s practice of treating ballot measure petitions as releasable public records.
So on January 15, the Supreme Court will decide whether they will hear the case. If they reject hearing it then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision will stand and the names of the petition signers must be released. More details from Dominic Holden over at The Stranger.
In my opinion the referendum never actually qualified for the ballot and reviewing the signatures may prove it depending on what kind of access we are given to registered voters.
The verification system for R-71 was flawed since once a signature was judged as valid by just one person, one time, it was considered as valid forever and never reviewed by any “master checker.” The invalid signatures were reviewed again and again and again until someone, anyone, eventually determined the signature matched the signature on file or the name miraculously appeared in the voter database nearly two months after the petitions had to be turned in. (Because of an injunction, only anti-gay R-71 organizers had full access to the petitions so they could go out weeks later and register those that did not appear in the voter database before the name was checked by the SoS staff)
It may sound like it is unnecessary since R-71 was soundly “Approved” anyway. However, the integrity of the entire election system in at stake here.
Update: A lot of debate has just been created over this issue in the past few hours. Let me make it clear that these are my feelings of why I want the names released not arguments to the Supreme Court on why they should release the names. It is clear from the comments you can read here that the legal argument are more basic in that there is nothing special about R-71 and all initiatives should be treated the same with full transparency. Here are just a couple of comments:
…the names & addresses of people who sign petitions are to be released upon request. The anti-71 folks are trying to be exempted from that law.
absolutely no expectation of privacy probably knowing OTHER STRANGERS would see their signatures inluding the sig. gathering folks and the campaign who might even database all those names! they also must be deemed to know that state law says unless a specific exemption applies this is disclosable…you and some dude at Walmart taking signatures for a public petition to change public laws, where we know the govt. will count the signatures and scrutinize them….you don’t. you generally don’t have privacy interests in your NAME which by definition isn’t private. this petition case is far simpler than you are making it.
And State Rep Reuven Carlyle had the following comment:
The issue surfaced around Referendum 71. But this isn’t about R-71 or any other initiative specifically, it’s about our fundamental right to public information, and it goes to the core of state’s history and values.
Open government isn’t just for elected officials nor about access to specific public records. It’s about creating a culture of open, transparent access to the broadest definition of information in the public interest. We must have a wide definition of the public good. The names and addresses of those who sign petitions–a very public act itself–should be public.
