Supreme court rules signatures initiative signatures are not protected

[FA_Q2]

Supreme Court: Names on ballot petitions can be disclosed - latimes.com

I am taken aback by this ruling. I dont see why peoples names should be public as, to me at least, it is the same as casting a vote. The ruling somewhat angered me but I have to be missing something. 8-1 is a pretty strong ruling and makes me think twice. What am I missing?

 

[Barb]

Supreme Court: Names on ballot petitions can be disclosed - latimes.com

I am taken aback by this ruling. I dont see why peoples names should be public as, to me at least, it is the same as casting a vote. The ruling somewhat angered me but I have to be missing something. 8-1 is a pretty strong ruling and makes me think twice. What am I missing?

A vote is a weighing in on something or someone already introduced to the public. A petition is an effort to introduce or influence public policy that effects everyone. The community has a right to know, before they decide their vote, ALL information regarding who is pushing for the change in policy, and why they would be advocating such.

For instance, I could be a business owner who started a petition to change zoning...other people who signed my petition could have a vested interest in seeing my proposed change pass. My and their interests might not coincide with the interests of the communities long-term interests, but how would the public know what they're being asked to cosign with their vote or support without a clue to the interests of those who signed, without knowing who they are, or what their underlying interests are?

 

[goldcatt]

Signing a petition is a public act, and its only purpose is for the petitioners to claim public support for a cause or issue using the number of signatures they gather. Signatures they then (usually) turn in to public officials in order to try to influence public policy. Public...public...public....see a pattern here?

 

[2Parties]

I'd like to know who supported increasing my taxes to finance government programs like war, medicare, and public parks.

Make all votes public.

 

[Yurt]

Signing a petition is a public act, and its only purpose is for the petitioners to claim public support for a cause or issue using the number of signatures they gather. Signatures they then (usually) turn in to public officials in order to try to influence public policy. Public...public...public....see a pattern here?

i respectfully disagree....the petition signatures simply get the process to the referendum phase and at that phase is when both parties come out to the public square to convince people to vote a certain way at the ballot. it makes no sense to require the signatures, which are only a small amount of the eligible voters, be public and not the vote at the ballot box, which is really the ultimate action of the civic duty. i would argue the vote is far more important than the signatures on the petition...if the vote is private, what purpose is there to make the signatures public, to publicize your personal information....when during the referendum process is when both sides come out and try to convince everyone to vote a certain way at the ballot box for the petition.

To initiate a referendum, proponents must file a peti-tion with the secretary of state that contains valid signatures of reg-istered Washington voters equal to or exceeding four percent of the votes cast for the office of Governor at the last gubernatorial election.....

That same month, Protect Marriage Washington, one ofthe petitioners here, was organized as a “State Political Committee”for the purpose of collecting the petition signatures necessary to placea referendum challenging SB 5688 on the ballot. If the referendum made it onto the ballot, Protect Marriage Washington planned to en-courage voters to reject SB 5688.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf

 

[goldcatt]

Signing a petition is a public act, and its only purpose is for the petitioners to claim public support for a cause or issue using the number of signatures they gather. Signatures they then (usually) turn in to public officials in order to try to influence public policy. Public...public...public....see a pattern here?

i respectfully disagree....the petition signatures simply get the process to the referendum phase and at that phase is when both parties come out to the public square to convince people to vote a certain way at the ballot. it makes no sense to require the signatures, which are only a small amount of the eligible voters, be public and not the vote at the ballot box, which is really the ultimate action of the civic duty. i would argue the vote is far more important than the signatures on the petition...if the vote is private, what purpose is there to make the signatures public, to publicize your personal information....when during the referendum process is when both sides come out and try to convince everyone to vote a certain way at the ballot box for the petition.

To initiate a referendum, proponents must file a peti-tion with the secretary of state that contains valid signatures of reg-istered Washington voters equal to or exceeding four percent of the votes cast for the office of Governor at the last gubernatorial election.....

That same month, Protect Marriage Washington, one ofthe petitioners here, was organized as a “State Political Committee”for the purpose of collecting the petition signatures necessary to placea referendum challenging SB 5688 on the ballot. If the referendum made it onto the ballot, Protect Marriage Washington planned to en-courage voters to reject SB 5688.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf

If you're talking specifically about a petition to place a referendum on the ballot, then I have to agree with Barb.

When a bill is introduced in Congress you can look at the sponsors, their voting histories, their donors, their statements, their party, and other things to get a pretty good handle on what the bill is intended to do. We couldn't do that for Joe the Petition Signer, but they're doing roughly the same thing as Joe the Congressman. Proposing new law. We have the right to know who they are and what their agendas are in order to judge their position and their intent in making this law.

 

[Yurt]

Signing a petition is a public act, and its only purpose is for the petitioners to claim public support for a cause or issue using the number of signatures they gather. Signatures they then (usually) turn in to public officials in order to try to influence public policy. Public...public...public....see a pattern here?

i respectfully disagree....the petition signatures simply get the process to the referendum phase and at that phase is when both parties come out to the public square to convince people to vote a certain way at the ballot. it makes no sense to require the signatures, which are only a small amount of the eligible voters, be public and not the vote at the ballot box, which is really the ultimate action of the civic duty. i would argue the vote is far more important than the signatures on the petition...if the vote is private, what purpose is there to make the signatures public, to publicize your personal information....when during the referendum process is when both sides come out and try to convince everyone to vote a certain way at the ballot box for the petition.

To initiate a referendum, proponents must file a peti-tion with the secretary of state that contains valid signatures of reg-istered Washington voters equal to or exceeding four percent of the votes cast for the office of Governor at the last gubernatorial election.....

That same month, Protect Marriage Washington, one ofthe petitioners here, was organized as a “State Political Committee”for the purpose of collecting the petition signatures necessary to placea referendum challenging SB 5688 on the ballot. If the referendum made it onto the ballot, Protect Marriage Washington planned to en-courage voters to reject SB 5688.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf

If you're talking specifically about a petition to place a referendum on the ballot, then I have to agree with Barb.

When a bill is introduced in Congress you can look at the sponsors, their voting histories, their donors, their statements, their party, and other things to get a pretty good handle on what the bill is intended to do. We couldn't do that for Joe the Petition Signer, but they're doing roughly the same thing as Joe the Congressman. Proposing new law. We have the right to know who they are and what their agendas are in order to judge their position and their intent in making this law.

actually....votes in congress are public...so i do not believe you can compare the two as equal...

as i showed from the case....once they get a measely 4%, it goes into the referendum phase where people come out and publicly try to convince people to vote for the petition at the ballot box...its part and parcel of the same process

 

[Luissa]

If Joe Blow can collect your signature, Joe Blow can see it.

 

[Yurt]

If Joe Blow can collect your signature, Joe Blow can see it.

entirely different than publishing it...and it would be easy to require confidentiality of those obtaining signatures

next

 

[FA_Q2]

I understand the need to be able to see the people that PROPOSED the petition but that is entirely different then the people that are signing the petition. That is a MAJOR difference. What can you POSSIBLY gain from knowing which Joe Blow signed the petition and which did not. The fear that I have is the same fear that those trying to defend the hidden signatures - that there will be activists willing to try and 'change' their minds. I see no reason for the public to be outed when putting their support behind anything. I is none of your business weather or not I support a particular referendum or not and nothing but bad influence can come from releasing anyone's name.

 

[Polk]

I see were the opponents of the decision are coming from, but they're highly misguided.

 

[Yurt]

I understand the need to be able to see the people that PROPOSED the petition but that is entirely different then the people that are signing the petition. That is a MAJOR difference. What can you POSSIBLY gain from knowing which Joe Blow signed the petition and which did not. The fear that I have is the same fear that those trying to defend the hidden signatures - that there will be activists willing to try and 'change' their minds. I see no reason for the public to be outed when putting their support behind anything. I is none of your business weather or not I support a particular referendum or not and nothing but bad influence can come from releasing anyone's name.

exactly...after the signatures have been verified by the proper state official, it goes to the referendum process and it is in the staget that proponents and opponents publicly try to sway voters to vote either for or against the petition at the ballot box

it is the height of stupidity to want to see a mere 4% of registered voters who voted for the governor or in the last general election....it doesn't show anything....once the petition meets requirements to get on the ballot, then those who support it and oppose it come out and show themselves...to deny this is what happens is to deny reality

even scotus mentions this:

If the referendum made it onto the ballot, Protect Marriage Washington planned to en-courage voters to reject SB 5688.

 

[FA_Q2]

I see were the opponents of the decision are coming from, but they're highly misguided.

No more than that? Care to say where?

 

[Flopper]

Supreme Court: Names on ballot petitions can be disclosed - latimes.com

I am taken aback by this ruling. I dont see why peoples names should be public as, to me at least, it is the same as casting a vote. The ruling somewhat angered me but I have to be missing something. 8-1 is a pretty strong ruling and makes me think twice. What am I missing?

As was explained in the Justice's opinion, "Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures,"

So if I questioned whether the right people signed the petition or whether the signatures are valid, I should have the opportunity to validate. I agree with the justices. Prevention of fraud trumps 1st amendment rights in this case.

 

[2Parties]

If 10,000 sign a paper putting a measure on the ballot for a 4 million dollar public park you could be damn sure I want to know who signed it and who voted for it. It has nothing to do with privacy. When they are forcefully taking money from people who would not voluntarily give their privacy needs to be thrown out the window.

 

[Flopper]

If 10,000 sign a paper putting a measure on the ballot for a 4 million dollar public park you could be damn sure I want to know who signed it and who voted for it. It has nothing to do with privacy. When they are forcefully taking money from people who would not voluntarily give their privacy needs to be thrown out the window.

Well, you may be able to see the petition, but you won't see the ballot for good reason. The secret ballot is the only way to insure the voter will not be intimidated and will vote according to their beliefs.

 

[Yurt]

Supreme Court: Names on ballot petitions can be disclosed - latimes.com

I am taken aback by this ruling. I dont see why peoples names should be public as, to me at least, it is the same as casting a vote. The ruling somewhat angered me but I have to be missing something. 8-1 is a pretty strong ruling and makes me think twice. What am I missing?

As was explained in the Justice's opinion, "Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures,"

So if I questioned whether the right people signed the petition or whether the signatures are valid, I should have the opportunity to validate. I agree with the justices. Prevention of fraud trumps 1st amendment rights in this case.

the official whose duty it is to ensure valid signatures can look up the people in order to verify....but why should you have that ability? we already have an official and his employees charged with verification. i disagree with the court that the official alone can't do his job and that we need the public to verify each and every signature.

fact is, the reason this went to court is not because people wanted to verify signatures, rather, they wanted to intimidate those who signed it....knowthyneighbor.org....that is not about verification, that is about intimidation

when this goes back to the district court, the court will rule that the signatures in this specific case are to be private

 

[2Parties]

Well, you may be able to see the petition, but you won't see the ballot for good reason. The secret ballot is the only way to insure the voter will not be intimidated and will vote according to their beliefs.

They have no problem intimidating me with government laws, guns, and courts if I don't want to open my checkbook to contribute to their cause. Of course they want privacy. Maybe people would be more pissed off if they knew who all the lazy people were who couldn't raise the funds themselves and wanted to forcefully take it from people...

Grinds me gears if you couldn't tell...

 

[Yurt]

If 10,000 sign a paper putting a measure on the ballot for a 4 million dollar public park you could be damn sure I want to know who signed it and who voted for it. It has nothing to do with privacy. When they are forcefully taking money from people who would not voluntarily give their privacy needs to be thrown out the window.

Well, you may be able to see the petition, but you won't see the ballot for good reason. The secret ballot is the only way to insure the voter will not be intimidated and will vote according to their beliefs.

the signature on the petition is part of the same electoral process....the signature merely gets the petition on the ballot....why shouldn't signatures also enjoy the same level of privacy?

 

[Flopper]

Well, you may be able to see the petition, but you won't see the ballot for good reason. The secret ballot is the only way to insure the voter will not be intimidated and will vote according to their beliefs.

They have no problem intimidating me with government laws, guns, and courts if I don't want to open my checkbook to contribute to their cause. Of course they want privacy. Maybe people would be more pissed off if they knew who all the lazy people were who couldn't raise the funds themselves and wanted to forcefully take it from people...

Grinds me gears if you couldn't tell...

When a vote doesn't go our way, we often say " Who are idiots that voted for this thing"? But do we really want to know? And if we did, what would we do about it? Publish their names in the newspaper. Burn a cross on their lawn. That's exactly what the secret ballot is there to prevent. If we don't like the way others vote, then we need to educate and persuade them to vote differently.