Ref 71 and the Supreme Court..

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Sep 7, 2008
43,234
6,037
1,785
TARDIS
In a hearing punctuated by sharp questions, U.S. Supreme Court justices Wednesday seemed skeptical that people who sign ballot petitions — including one that sought to overturn a gay-rights law in Washington state — should remain anonymous.

"Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," Justice Antonin Scalia said during oral arguments in a case brought by conservative groups trying to keep Referendum 71 petition signatures secret. "The First Amendment offers no protection against criticism or even nasty phone calls."

Scalia was one of several justices who appeared unpersuaded that signing a ballot petition is political speech deserving the highest degree of protection. Rather, they homed in on the broad implications of granting blanket exemption to all initiative or referendum petitions from public disclosure.

The case, Doe v. Reed, arose out of a 2009 Washington law granting gay and lesbian couples registered as domestic partners the same state rights as married people. Opponents sought to repeal the law through Ref. 71. The measure qualified for last November's ballot, but 53 percent of voters opted to uphold the expanded benefits.



Several justices appeared skeptical of the case made by James Bopp Jr., the plaintiff's attorney, that disclosing the names on petitions on any topic significantly intrudes on the First Amendment.

Scalia pounced first, interrupting Bopp as he argued that the Constitution protects against forced disclosure of beliefs and identities.

"What about disclosure of campaign contributions?" Scalia asked.

"Do you think it's unconstitutional?" Scalia added, forcing Bopp to acknowledge dryly that "this court has upheld the disclosure in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976."

That was followed by rapid dissections by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Sotomayor and Roberts questioned whether it would infringe on free speech if the public knew exactly who was supporting a new tax plan or a bond issue. If not, Roberts said, Bopp's central argument "fails as well."

Ginsburg elicited an acknowledgment from Bopp that Protect Marriage Washington, the group that put Ref. 71 on the ballot, sometimes uses or sells the list of petition signers' names for fundraising.

Supreme Court skeptical on keeping Ref. 71 petition names secret
 
In a hearing punctuated by sharp questions, U.S. Supreme Court justices Wednesday seemed skeptical that people who sign ballot petitions — including one that sought to overturn a gay-rights law in Washington state — should remain anonymous.

"Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," Justice Antonin Scalia said during oral arguments in a case brought by conservative groups trying to keep Referendum 71 petition signatures secret. "The First Amendment offers no protection against criticism or even nasty phone calls."

Scalia was one of several justices who appeared unpersuaded that signing a ballot petition is political speech deserving the highest degree of protection. Rather, they homed in on the broad implications of granting blanket exemption to all initiative or referendum petitions from public disclosure.

The case, Doe v. Reed, arose out of a 2009 Washington law granting gay and lesbian couples registered as domestic partners the same state rights as married people. Opponents sought to repeal the law through Ref. 71. The measure qualified for last November's ballot, but 53 percent of voters opted to uphold the expanded benefits.



Several justices appeared skeptical of the case made by James Bopp Jr., the plaintiff's attorney, that disclosing the names on petitions on any topic significantly intrudes on the First Amendment.

Scalia pounced first, interrupting Bopp as he argued that the Constitution protects against forced disclosure of beliefs and identities.

"What about disclosure of campaign contributions?" Scalia asked.

"Do you think it's unconstitutional?" Scalia added, forcing Bopp to acknowledge dryly that "this court has upheld the disclosure in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976."

That was followed by rapid dissections by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Sotomayor and Roberts questioned whether it would infringe on free speech if the public knew exactly who was supporting a new tax plan or a bond issue. If not, Roberts said, Bopp's central argument "fails as well."

Ginsburg elicited an acknowledgment from Bopp that Protect Marriage Washington, the group that put Ref. 71 on the ballot, sometimes uses or sells the list of petition signers' names for fundraising.

Supreme Court skeptical on keeping Ref. 71 petition names secret

We in CA are watching.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top