Litigation

?Petition-Signers Ought Not Expect Privacy?

By Peter Hardin

One of the nation’s largest newspapers took a firm stand in support of transparency and accountability in government following a recent Supreme Court decision involving a First Amendment case.

The USA Today editorial commented after the Supreme Court ruled that no all signers of  petitions seeking a public vote on a hot policy issue can expect to keep their identities anonymous (see Gavel Grab).

The editorial quoted remarks by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said during oral arguments that “Democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage.” He added, “The First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights.” The editorial continued:

“Scalia has it about right. Transparency and accountability are the fundamentals of democracy, and it’s better for democracy when society leans toward more openness, not less. Granting anonymity runs counter to the American grain. Campaign donations, real estate transactions and an array of other data are routinely disclosed. Perhaps the most extreme example is witnesses at criminal trials, who must testify in open court despite the risk of severe reprisals.

“If people are harassed for signing a petition, there’s already a remedy for that. It’s called enforcement of anti-harassment laws.”

The newspaper also gave space for an opposing opinion by James Bopp Jr., a lawyer who represented opponents of same-sex marriage in the Washington state case decided by the high court. Bopp noted that under the ruling, certain petition signers may get their anonymity protected if they show in court they are targets of harassment:

“No American citizen should worry that his participation in our political system will subject him or his family to threats or physical harm. This decision allows supporters of traditional marriage to seek protection from those who wish to harass or intimidate them, and the evidence of targeted harassment of supporters of traditional marriage is overwhelming.

“It is unfortunate, however, that the Supreme Court has refused to protect everyone’s First Amendment rights.”

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