Litigation

High Court to Hear ?Blockbuster? Speech Case

By Peter Hardin

It hasn’t gotten anywhere near the attention of Citizens United, but another free-speech case with significant ramifications–this time involving privacy for signers of a ballot petition–will be heard by the Supreme Court this week.

Doe v. Reed is a blockbuster case, according to a National Law Journal article, dealing with “a First Amendment speech and privacy challenge to the release of names on petitions for a Washington state referendum on repealing a gay rights law.”

The court will be asked to decide whether names of 138,000 people who signed the petitions should be released, a McClatchy Newspapers report stated. Traditional marriage supporters want to keep the names secret, saying disclosure  would probably subject the signers to threats and harassment (see Gavel Grab).

Lawyer James Bopp Jr. of Indiana, who played a key role in framing the Citizens United case, is representing the activists who want to keep the signers’ names secret. Bopp hasn’t hidden his long-term goal of dismantling the nation’s campaign finance regulation laws.

A thorough article about the Washington state case in the Seattle Times sums up the central issue this way:

“The Supreme Court has never ruled on what it means to sign a ballot-measure petition: Is it core political speech that can be anonymous, or is it a public process akin to legislators making law?”

According to a friend-of-the-court brief by the National Conference of State Legislatures, 24 states permit citizen referendums or initiatives. Under public-record laws, 23 of them disclose petition signatures.

The ballot initiative was called Referendum 71. Voters ultimately approved keeping intact the expanded domestic-partnership law with ?everything but marriage? benefits.

A Supreme Court decision could have major impact in several areas. It may signal some of the high court’s views on gay marriage, and more directly could affect  campaign finance disclosure requirements in the Internet era.

Lyrissa Lidsky of the University of Florida Levin College of Law told National Law Journal, “The Supreme Court has demanded a real showing of the possibility of intimidation before being willing to compromise transparency values.” Lidsky added, “But anonymity is a big issue right now and privacy too because of the Internet.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on April 27, 2010 (boomark / email).