U.S. Supreme Court to decide Washington state petitioners' case

By JOHN FORTMEYER
CNNW publisher
     WASHINGTON — In a matter of concern to many Christian residents of Washington state, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the names of people who signed petitions trying to overturn the state’s new gay rights law should be made public.
     The High Court on Jan. 15 accepted the Referendum 71 case and will hear arguments on it in April.
     An effort largely led by conservative Christians succeeded in getting Referendum 71 on last November’s statewide ballot by securing the signatures of 138,000 Washington residents, but failed to persuade a majority of voters to overturn the same-sex domestic partnership law.
    Now, the coalition that sponsored the petition effort is asking the justices to block the release of the names of those who signed, citing threats of violence against the petition signers and churches.
     Homosexual rights groups have said that they will post the petition signers’ names online, and some of the signers fear harassment or threats if their names are revealed.
     A state panel last year said no to Protect Marriage Washington’s request that release of the names be blocked, but in September U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma ruled that releasing the names would violate those people’s constitutional rights.
     Settle said petition signers were effectively engaging in political speech, which he said the First Amendment allows people to conduct anonymously.
But in October a three-member panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled Settle, saying signing a petition in public is not an anonymous activity.
     However, a Thurston County Superior Court judge then issued a temporary restraining order against Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna and Secretary of State Sam Reed releasing the names and addresses until he received the full written opinion of the 9th Circuit. Reed and McKenna support the release of initiative and referendum petitions under terms of the Public Records Act that state voters approved in 1972.
     Meanwhile, the 9th Circuit decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which voted 8 to 1 to keep the restraining order in place for now.
Gary Randall of the Faith and Freedom Network, one of the leaders in the petition effort,said the Supreme Court case “will bring national attention to our position of protecting free speech.”
     Randall wrote in November that it was “unconscionable” that McKenna and Reed would ignore the “real documented threats already made against some who are defending marriage and the threat to further intimidate people from using the names from the petitions.”
     But Brian Murphy of the homosexual activist group “Who Signed,” which seeks to post the names and addresses, countered that the petition effort “must meet a high standard of transparency to ensure a fair and open discussion in the public forum.”
     Representing the group seeking to keep the names private is attorney James Bopp, general counsel for the Indiana-based James Madison Center for Free Speech. He has said people should be able to participate in the political system without the government compelling them to identify themselves.