Supreme Court rules signatures are Public!

[Luissa]

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's next, no more anonymous donations, especially to political campaigns and causes?

 

[my2¢]

For sake of helping insure legitimacy of petition signatures, I'm glad the court ruled that these signatures are public.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

 

[martybegan]

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?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So this should end anonymous political donations too, right?

 

[rightwinger]

By signing a petition, you are publicly and officially providing your support. How can a petition be anonymous?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By signing a petition, you are publicly and officially providing your support. How can a petition be anonymous?

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

 

[Gatekeeper]

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.

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.

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

 

[Sarah G]

What's next, no more anonymous donations, especially to political campaigns and causes?

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What's next, no more anonymous donations, especially to political campaigns and causes?

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.

Lets start with the lists from Obama's fund raisers. Names and amounts please.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's next, no more anonymous donations, especially to political campaigns and causes?

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.

I concur!

Anyone running for public office should at very least maintain a website with a list of contributors.

 

[rightwinger]

By signing a petition, you are publicly and officially providing your support. How can a petition be anonymous?

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

Doesn't matter

You signed the petition. It becomes a public document. If you are not willing to have your name associated with supporting the candidate or issue, you should not be signing it

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By signing a petition, you are publicly and officially providing your support. How can a petition be anonymous?

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

Doesn't matter

You signed the petition. It becomes a public document. If you are not willing to have your name associated with supporting the candidate or issue, you should not be signing it

Doesn't bother me, I have weapons so when assholes like you come around to threaten me or attack me I am prepared. There is absolutely no reason joe public needs the names EXCEPT as a tool to harass.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By signing a petition, you are publicly and officially providing your support. How can a petition be anonymous?

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

Doesn't matter

You signed the petition. It becomes a public document. If you are not willing to have your name associated with supporting the candidate or issue, you should not be signing it

Just remember that it cuts both ways

 

[manifold]

I agree with this decision completely.

If you're signing your name to a petition you shouldn't have any expectation of anonymity.

If you want to express your douchebag opinions anonymously, use the internet.

 

[Sarah G]

What's next, no more anonymous donations, especially to political campaigns and causes?

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.

Lets start with the lists from Obama's fund raisers. Names and amounts please.

Did you think I only meant Repubs should share that info? We do already know some of their contributors, things like that just don't remain a big secret in fact, there is a website called open secrets where you can obtain a lot of that info.

If you want me to go fetch it for you, no, go get it yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's next, no more anonymous donations, especially to political campaigns and causes?

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.

Lets start with the lists from Obama's fund raisers. Names and amounts please.

Iraqi Oil for Food Billionaire and Fugitive Nadhmi Auchi funneled money to Tony Rezko who paid for the Obama's House and a $625,000 tract of land for which the Obama paid just over $100,000.

Let's start there.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Lets start with the lists from Obama's fund raisers. Names and amounts please.

Iraqi Oil for Food Billionaire and Fugitive Nadhmi Auchi funneled money to Tony Rezko who paid for the Obama's House and a $625,000 tract of land for which the Obama paid just over $100,000.

Let's start there.

OHHHHHHhhhhhh

Sounds like a Conspiracy, why don't you post it with all your Larry Sinclair threads?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Lets start with the lists from Obama's fund raisers. Names and amounts please.

Iraqi Oil for Food Billionaire and Fugitive Nadhmi Auchi funneled money to Tony Rezko who paid for the Obama's House and a $625,000 tract of land for which the Obama paid just over $100,000.

Let's start there.

OHHHHHHhhhhhh

Sounds like a Conspiracy

Yup, I smell another thread that's going to be moved due to the 'evolution of spin n twist'