Legal News

On Petitions and Secrecy: The Latest First Amendment Craze

By Ashby Jones

Say you feel strongly about a given issue. You sign a petition in support of that issue. Do you then have an expectation that your signing that petition will be kept from the eyes of the public? Do you have a First Amendment right to keep that information from being publicly disseminated?

It’s an issue that recently played out in regard to separate issues in Tennessee and California. In both instances, courts ruled that the petition-signers did not have a First Amendment right to keep their signatures private. In a ruling Jan. 29 on a request for a preliminary injunction to block release of the names of signers in support of Proposition 8, the ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. said advocates failed to show a direct connection to violent reaction, and that "if ever there needs to be sunshine on a political issue, it's with a ballot measure."

The issue is currently playing out in Washington State — where it could possibly be headed to a conclusion different from those reached in Tennessee and California.

Click here for the story, from the Seattle Times. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Tacoma temporarily blocked release of the names and addresses of those who signed petitions for Referendum 71, which would repeal a recent law giving gay couples new marriagelike benefits.

A consortium of religious conservative organizations, Protect Marriage Washington on Saturday submitted 138,500 signatures to the secretary of state seeking to qualify Referendum 71 for the November ballot. The organization then sued to block release of the names on constitutional grounds, claiming state disclosure law “chills free speech . . . particularly when it is reasonably probable that those exercising their First Amendment rights would be subjected to threats and harassment.”

U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle on Wednesday afternoon granted a temporary restraining order requested by Protect Marriage Washington to stop the Secretary of State’s Office from making the signers’ names public. The order will remain in place until a hearing set for Sept. 3.

In his order, Judge Settle referred to the strength of the referendum backers’ case, writing that they “have sufficiently demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits” of their First Amendment claim, and “a reasonable likelihood of irreparable harm if the names are released.”

Tom Lang, director of knowthyneighbor.org, which hopes to post the names on that Web site, said he was intensely disappointed, saying the state had failed to defend its own public-disclosure law in court. “All this information belongs to the public,” Lang said. “We should not have to ask for it to be made public or wait for a court decision.”

LBers, any thoughts on this?

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on July 31, 2009 (boomark / email).