I can imagine a case where people would put themselves at risk of physical harm or harassment by signing a petition if their name were later publicly disclosed. For example, petitioning the government not to go to war at a time when the country was clamoring for blood. I think we can relate to that example. So, I don’t dismiss the concerns of anti-gay rights petitioners when they ask that their names not be disclosed. On the other hand, when your petition is actually part of a legal process for putting a referendum question on the ballot, there has to be disclosure because there are eligibility standards involved. The public deserves to know whether a sufficient number of legal signatures have been obtained to put the question on the ballot.
Strictly speaking, it shouldn’t matter whether the issue is controversial or not. If you are petitioning to reinstate Jim Crow laws or petitioning to keep Christmas a federal holiday, the same law should apply to disclosure. I do think it is interesting, however, that anti-gay rights organizers feel that their position is odious enough to inspire a violent response. It’s not a legal principle, but as a political matter it does make it harder to abuse the referendum system to disclose the identities of people who are pushing for a referendum. If you don’t want your name associated with what you believe, chances are that your beliefs shouldn’t become law. That’s not always true, but, for the most part, it is.
They don’t “feel that their position is odious” and you know they don’t. Heck, they feel righteous, upright and morally superior. What they feel is fear of gay people who they think our deviant, perverse and, therefore, potentially violent. Of course, they’re wrong about being righteous and they’re doubly wrong to suspect that the homosexual population is more prone to violence than heterosexuals are. But, that’s not really the issue here. The issue is privacy.
There are state government offices that check over signature petitions to make sure they are valid; the general public doesn’t need to know the details. Posting the names on a web site, printing them in the newspaper of record or especially giving them to opponents of the referendum is an invasion of privacy like publishing how everyone voted in the last election. Basically, requiring public disclosure would lead to no one ever petitioning for anything because every issue arouses potential personal threats. The Constitution guarantees secret ballots and referendum petitions are a form of voting.
Bottom line: I really don’t want right-wingnuts to know my street address. That would be the unintended consequence of exposing these homophobes.
Except that, in WA state anyway, the petition signature disclosure law has operated for decades without any evidence of abuse. Sure, the Internet makes disclosure of names easier, but as a practical matter, if there’s hundreds of thousands (or more) of publicly listed supporters of a controversial measure, of any sort, only the most prominent will face any sort of backlash. Which happens now anyway, regardless of this case.
there is no right to a secret petition for a ballot question. If the court chooses to create such a right, it will be a new phenomenon.
I don’t think I suggested that any kind of “secret petition” should exist. When I sign a petition, I fully expect government officials to validate my identity. My participation is not a secret to those to whom it was addressed. I’m just uncomfortable with the idea of letting every Tom, Dick and Nutcase know that I participated.
I disagree. I think these types of things should be public information. If you are that involved that you would sign a petition, then you should have to back up your position to your neighbors.
For example, I was on the wrong side of this once. I worked to oppose a KKK rally in my home town in PA, circa 1990. They got my home address and phone number and proceeded to call me with death threats and deface the sidewalk in front of my house. I did not back down. I proceeded to organize against them. I was pretty scared, but I put myself out there and was so sure of my position, that I was willing to defend it.
If it means that much to you, then stand by your position and defend your ideology. Believe me, it is far scarier standing up to the KKK than it is to gay rights activists! If you are not willing to do that, then maybe you shouldn’t sign the petition.
If you are rabidly against gay rights, I want to know. I will boycott your business. If you are a member of the KKK, I want to know. If you sign a petition for legalizing marijuana, I want to know, so I can support you and vice versa. Making this info public will make sure people will only sign on if they truly believe in what they are signing and willing to take the consequences. It’s too easy to get a slew of people who have no idea what they are signing or are only willing to sign on condition of anonymity.
I can see the reverse of this position and I do respect it. Right to privacy is important. I just feel that if you want to be private, don’t engage the system. You can still express yourself through your votes and private communications. But, signing a petition is like joining a group on Facebook. There are plenty of ways to remain under the radar, signing petitions or the like shouldn’t be one of them.
Since it was local, I followed the WA state case pretty closely, and there was another element not mentioned in national press accounts.
The Referendum 71 (anti-gay) folks actually fought two separate federal cases, only one of which has made it to the USSC. One was to avoid disclosure of petition-signers. The other had to do with donors to their campaign. Their campaign wanted both anonymity and, in the last 21 days of the campaign, to lift the state’s $5,000 limitation on donations for ballot measures. The reason was pretty simple: they had deep pockets lined up that wanted to flood the election with ads at the last minute, without time for either response or for anyone to find out who was behind it. (WA State votes all by mail; ballots go out in mid-October for a general election, hence 21 days.)
The reason for all of these was fairly simple: the referendum was supported financially mostly by a small number of very deep-pocketed people. While the threat of threats against supporters by the more fanatic opponents (on “our” side or any other) is IMO very real, in R. 71’s case they were never more than peripherally concerned about those good church-going folk who signed whatever their pastor told them to. The real concern about harassment and threats was with the relatively small numbers of people who wanted to put a lot of money behind their bigotry (or, in the Prop. 8 courtroom TV case, with the small number of backers who’d testify).
Regardless of the content of their measures, nobody should be able to anonymously buy their way onto a ballot. That’s the root of this case. The question before the USSC is IMO a bit less clear-cut, but it wasn’t the primary concern of R-71’s organizers.
This is informative and interesting. Thanks.
I would guess that boycotts and being used as a public focus for activism are closer to the real reasons the pro-discrimination crowd doesn’t want their names made public. Isn’t that how it went down in CA?
Also, I wonder how involved local Mormon individuals/institutions are. As I recall, there’s a decent sized Mormon population in Eastern WA.
In 1968 I was held against a car and threatened with wrench at my face for opposing the Vietnam War. As scary as it was, it didn’t stop my opposition to the war. Sometimes being politically active has its risks.
Regarding this story and the timidity of the Prop 8 people in the current trial in federal court in San Francisco, what’s interesting is how frightened that these people are of gays. Their fear isn’t rooted in reality. But the fear is deep. They think that somehow acknowledging that gays would marry would somehow threaten their own marriages. Or God would strike them down. Or something. It’s really a very deepseated fear that is beyond rationality. It kind of reminds me of how white people used to be so afraid of black people back in the sixties.
The Prop 8 decision has little to do with the WA decision by the Supremes .. although the donors and petitioners should be a publicly available database kind of thing
Not legally. I only raised it because I was struck how afraid the homophobes are. Really scared. “If they know our names they’ll make us gay or steal our children.” Just weird, in my opinion.
“I do think it is interesting, however, that anti-gay rights organizers feel that their position is odious enough to inspire a violent response.”
Has there ever been a clearer example of projection? The Christian martyr complex does its work again. Like it’s the gays that go around beating up and killing the “other side”. Amazing.