Supreme Court rules signatures are Public!

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Luissa, Jun 25, 2010.

  1. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    Local News | Ref. 71 signatures are public, Supreme Court rules | Seattle Times Newspaper

    The high court ruled Thursday in an 8-1 decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, that disclosing the identities of petition-signers does not, generally, violate the First Amendment.

    But the justices also said their decision "does not foreclose success" should Ref. 71 sponsors decide to pursue an exemption in a lower court — which the sponsors said they will do.

    Those who want to keep Ref. 71 signers' names confidential now will have to prove in U.S. District Court that there is "reasonable probability" that disclosing the names will lead to threats, harassment and reprisals.

    That's "a high standard to meet, and they just don't have the evidence to meet it," contended Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, who argued the case on behalf of the state in April.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,277
    Thanks Received:
    14,924
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,090
    What's next, no more anonymous donations, especially to political campaigns and causes?
     
  3. my2¢
    Offline

    my2¢ Registered Text Offender

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,046
    Thanks Received:
    413
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,727
    For sake of helping insure legitimacy of petition signatures, I'm glad the court ruled that these signatures are public.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,821
    Thanks Received:
    4,252
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,194
    Good call. People should have the balls to stand up and be counted for their convictions. Of course chicken hawks and other cowards who would take away the right of happiness to others understand that being petty is not a virtue; hence they ask a court to protect them from the possible consequences that being publicly branded a selfish asshole may cause. Being called a selfish asshole by ones neighbors when one is a selfish assholes seems just, and calling petty selfish assholes petty selfish assholes is a right protected by the Constitution.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2010
  5. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,495
    Thanks Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,046
    I think the path the court took was that because the petition leads to a refarendum which is techincally legislation. Legislators do not have the benefit of an austrialian ballot.

    I would think that a petition soley to display an opinion on a given subject, and to say we have X amount of signatures would not be covered by this.

    Lots of legalese in these opinions, and I'm an Engineer, and not a lawyer, but I want to read them and try to get the gist of them. Consitutional law is pretty facisnating to me.

    Going to the harrsment angle, What is the purpose of the people wanting to publicise the names? I'm sure shaming them is part of the reason, and isn't that a form of harrasment?

    The people wanting to stop the release of the names lost the slam dunk case. I have a feeling they may still win on the harrasment angle. hell, I will bet a few posts in this thread will attack the people who signed the petition. Whats to stop an attorney for the side wanting to stop publication to reference internet postings and an example of potential harm and harassment?
     
  6. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,277
    Thanks Received:
    14,924
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,090
    So this should end anonymous political donations too, right?
     
  7. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,549
    Thanks Received:
    19,880
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,540
    By signing a petition, you are publicly and officially providing your support. How can a petition be anonymous?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,277
    Thanks Received:
    14,924
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,090
    Sigh.

    You didn't read the case or the decision.

    The State had access to the petition, the issue was public disclosure.

    I would be upset, but I've yet to met a Progressive/Liberal/Tool would read an attachement even when they attach the article themselves
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Gatekeeper
    Offline

    Gatekeeper Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,004
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +350
    I do not see where it says Signatures, it says the Identities of the signers. I must be missing something.
    Petitions, I thought, we're always public knowledge along with those who signed them, not necessarily the actual signature but the name merely spelled out
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Sarah G
    Offline

    Sarah G When Nothing Goes Right, Go Left Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    47,686
    Thanks Received:
    11,834
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    NW Ohio
    Ratings:
    +24,039
    Donations to candidates may no longer be anonymous with the new rollback of campaign finance restrictions. I want the light to shine on all of that.
     

Share This Page