You sign a petition to curb gay rights. Should your name be public?

Mr. Bopp adds that the campaign manager for Protect Marriage Washington received an e-mail death threat and an e-mail threat against family members. The threats were reported to the police, and family members began sleeping in an interior living room for safety, Bopp wrote.

In his brief urging the Supreme Court not to take up the case, Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed acknowledges that Bopp’s clients have expressed concern about threats and harassment. But his brief dismisses the concerns in a single sentence: “The claim that the petitions should not be released because of the possibility of harassment and threats is not before the court.”

The state’s brief says that signing a referendum is a public act, and that any personal information recorded on a petition is therefore part of a public document.

Bopp wrote that, historically, personal information on referendum petitions in Washington State had not been considered public information, but that the current secretary of state views it as public.

“At stake are the speech and association rights of more than 138,000 citizens that signed the R-71 petition, as well as countless other signatories to referendum and initiative petitions in Washington and throughout the nation,” Bopp wrote. “The potential chilling effect on the freedoms of speech and association resulting from the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and analysis are substantial and deserve the attention of this court.”

Twenty-seven states empower residents to engage in an initiative or referendum process.

The current trial in San Francisco is aimed at overturning a ban on gay marriage in California imposed via a referendum. The vote overturned a California Supreme Court decision establishing a right to gay marriage under the California constitution. The lawsuit challenges the ban as a violation of due process and equal protection under the US Constitution.

A matter of government-compelled speech?

In the Washington State case, the question is whether the public release of personal information recorded on a referendum petition amounts to a form of government-compelled speech. In effect, the released information could reveal an individual’s position on a controversial political issue against the voter’s wishes.

The government requires identifying information on a ballot petition to verify the identity of the prospective voter, not to identify a prospective voter’s political views.

Washington State officials say that once personal information is provided to the state on a referendum petition and the information is verified, it must be available for public release.

The case is John Doe v. Sam Reed.

----

Follow us on Twitter.

Previous

1 | 2