Supreme Court Decision in Washington State R-71 Case Expected Soon

One can only hope that the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the names of those who sign ballot initiative petitions can and should be made public. Should the Court rule otherwise, a Pandora's Box will have been opened for all kinds of clandestine conspiracies by groups plotting against the legal rights of others. The only purported reason why secrecy is needed is fear of harassment. The real fear, however, is likely on the part of anti-equality organizations that fear it will be more difficult to obtain petition signatures if signers know that their bigotry will be made public. Indeed, a ruling against public disclosure would reward cowardice and undemocratic behavior. I have always been one to publicly stand behind my convictions and believe that, if one is afraid to have their name associated with a political or religious position, then they ought not be supporting it in the first place. The whole point of public disclosure is to keep the system open and allow others to know who financial contributors and supporters of measures are so as to avoid fraud. The Seattle Post has details on the case. Here are highlights:
*
The U.S. Supreme Court will likely rule by next Monday on a high-profile Washington state case concerning the names of people who signed petitions for Referendum 71 in an attempt to overturn a new gay rights law.
*
David Ammons, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, said the court now has 11 cases left to decide this term. Thursday and June 28 are the next regularly scheduled opinion says and it's probable that the decision in the R-71 case, Doe v. Reed, will come on one of those days, Ammons said.
*
Protect Marriage Washington, asked justices to shield the names of the 138,000 people who signed R-71 petitions in hopes of overturning the "everything but marriage" same-sex domestic partner law. In November Washington voters upheld the new statute. Gay rights groups have said they'll post the petition signers' names online, and some fear harassment or threats if their names are revealed.
*
State officials had said there are laws in place to protect people who might be threatened. When people sign petitions or referendums they are acting as legislators, state Attorney General Rob McKenna said, because they are trying to enact or change laws.
*
The ultimate decision could have far-reaching impacts, not just on the state's initiative and referendum process, but also for other "open government" laws like the disclosure of who contributes to political campaigns, and how much they give. Legal scholars nationwide followed the case.