Judge Blocks Release of Petition Signers' Names in Gay Rights Case

A court battle over releasing the names of petition signers on a Washington gay marriage-related referendum has moved from the U.S. Supreme Court to a federal district court.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle on Wednesday ordered the state of Washington to keep private the names and addresses of signers of the referendum to repeal the state’s domestic partnership law.

The Supreme Court in June in Doe v. Reed rejected Protect Marriage Washington’s broad constitutional arguments that the identities of petition signers generally are protected by the First Amendment from release under the state public records laws. However, the Court, in an 8-1 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., suggested the organization could attempt a narrower challenge, that disclosure of the names on this particular petition would violate the First Amendment if they could show evidence of actual threats of violence and harassment .

The order by the district court on Wednesday will allow Protect Marriage Washington to attempt to make that narrower claim.

The organization’s counsel, James Bopp Jr. of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom in Terre Haute, Ind., said, “Supporters of traditional marriage have received death threats and have had their personal property destroyed after standing up to protect the institution of marriage. I am confident that when the judge considers all of the evidence, copies of the petitions will not be released to the public.”

The district court asked the parties to agree to an accelerated schedule, but no hearings have yet been ordered.

Washington enacted a law in 2009 expanding the rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners. On July 25, 2009, Protect Marriage Washington submitted petitions with more than 138,500 signatures to the Washington secretary of state calling for a referendum by the Washington voters on that law. The ballot measure was considered in the following general election and the law was supported by a majority of those voting on the measure.

After the petitions had been submitted to the state, several supporters of the challenged law sought the names and addresses of the petition signers and one organization indicated it would publish that information on the Internet.

After prevailing in the district court, Protect Marriage Washington lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. That defeat led to the Supreme Court and its ruling on June 24.

Comments

[Andrew Turek]

How about abolishing the secret ballot and making people vote openly for or against black or white or male or male or female candidates or for or against legislative initiatives while you are about it?

[St_Augustine_FL]

Years ago, people who supported discrimination had white hoods to keep their identity secret, today, they have a judge doing it for them. My how times have changed.

[Joseph A. Mustich]

Transparency is the best way to handle the anti-marriage hysteria...

Onward to full civil and marriage equality in 21st century America.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.

[RickPo]

If/when they release the names and addresses of the petition signers, also release the names and addresses of the state-registered domestic partners. Seems only fair.

[Carmmen Leslie]

Government has no business regulating "contracts" when they are not "commerce"and Government is NOT A PARTY to the "contract". The "contract" called "marriage" is a contract between one male and one female.
"Choice of Lifestyle" is a "choice", and a right to do so is "not discriminated against! However "imposing" that "lifestyle choice" upon others, who are within a "marriage contract", is not a "legal right". "Choice" is not a "right". Interference with "contact", in which the interfering party is not a "party to that contract", is "discrimination" against those w/i that "contract".
Gays have no "standing/right" to CHANGE others' rights to "contract", because those persons have "chosen" to enter into a "contract". That "contract" just happens to be "entitled" "MARRIAGE".
No person who agrees to the "terms of that contract" is prevented from engaging in a "contract", called "marriage". The parties challenging "marriage" HAVE NO "STANDING/RIGHT"g to destroy others' "contracts", because they CHOSE not to live the "lifestyle choice" of other.

"Interference with contract" carries the right to "sue" the anti-pro Prop 8 groups, because of they "choose" to "interfere" with others' "right to contract" a "marriage".
"Gays" do not WISH to live the "lifestyle choice" required to enter the "contract of the marriage", but want to change the "terms" of that "contract" to "suit their lifestyle choice", imposing their "wishes" on others, while not being a "party to that contract".
"Marriage is a CONTRACT". It is NOT "commerce"---Obama's regulaton---so Government stay out. Gays do not have the "right" to change MY "contract".