You sign a petition to curb gay rights. Should your name be public?

[Wry Catcher]

How should the USSC vote, and why?

 

[Yurt]

no

your vote is private and a petition is a process in voting. privacy in voting is fundamental.

 

[Avatar4321]

Please tell me, what is the purpose of publicizing the names, other than voter intimidation?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

What is the usual standard? I don't know. There should not be any special standard for a specific petition.


Just to add fuel to the fire here..... Since there has never been publication of names before, what is the motivation for publicizing the names now? If it is only for purposes of voter intimidation. I think the motivation is chilling and dishonest.

 

[rightwinger]

Isn't signing a petition an open declaration of your support? Who ever signed an anonymous petition?

 

[The Rabbi]

I would agree with BM here: what is the usual standard? If the purpose of publicizing the names is simply to allow intimidation then that is wrong. One of our rights is petition for redress of grievance. Anything that impinges on that right is wrong.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I am pretty sure petitions are NOT protected.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This question is soon to be debated in the USSC. I'm of the opinion that a petition is not the same as a vote, and ought to be made public. If someone believes strongly in changing a law by the initiative process, they ought to have the courage of their convictions.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

This question is soon to be debated in the USSC. I'm of the opinion that a petition is not the same as a vote, and ought to be made public. If someone believes strongly in changing a law by the initiative process, they ought to have the courage of their convictions.

IF that is the current standard, then cool. If it is not, then there is something fishy about choosing just this one issue.

My understanding here in Oregon is they just count the names in the local courthouses, then they choose two names and verify the validity of the signature, and use a sampling of 1/15th of the names to determine if the petitions are valid. Then they toss them.

I think the same practice obtains in CA. I think CA has a higher threshold for petitions than we do here in OR.

I have signed several petitions on making marijuana legal. I have never had a visit from the cops because of this. Lets make that the rule. If you signed a petition to eliminate what you thought was a bad law would have repercussions like that, would you sign?

This seems less about how petitions are done, and more about intimidation. And we can't allow intimidation into the process

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How should the USSC vote, and why?

Public Petitions Are Public Property.

Petitioning the government is a public act. When gays pushed to get rights enacted by statute, I don't remember an argument for keeping names secret. Gays and their suppporters have always been inconvenienced, harrassed, and treated badly. Goes with the territory.

I remember supporting an openly gay candidate way back in the 70s...Elaine Noble. First openly gay state legislstor in US. She and many supporters had their lives threatened. Made some of us support her even more.

Elaine was and is, a wonderful woman. Her being gay was irrelevant to most. Her being hated and threatened was sickening

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

no

your vote is private and a petition is a process in voting. privacy in voting is fundamental.

You're wrong.

Petitions are public records. Registering to vote is public too.
Working for a non profit because of public tax breaks, makes the top worker's names and salaries...public.

I can look up when and where you vote... and what party you register with.

Signing a petition is NOT voting.

btw, some votes are public. lol

 

[SFC Ollie]

All these people want to do is get the names so they can post them on the net. Now tell me for what purpose would they want to post these names? It is not for any good reasons. I say the law should protect those names.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Please tell me, what is the purpose of publicizing the names, other than voter intimidation?

Debate? Knowing who is backing petitions is how one gets to debate and persuade.

Petition signers become part of the pubkic record. The government does NOT publicize names of signers. People who do use the public records....like publicizing the names of people who get arrested.

People who get arrested are innocent by law. Yet their arrest record is public info. why?

 

[Missourian]

This will come back and bite you in the ass.

 

[Dis]

If I'm going to take the time to read, and sign a petition, then I fully believe in what I'm signing. If someone finds out my name, and what I'm supporting, more power to them. What're they going to do? Tell me I'm wrong? Threaten to kick my ass?

Whatever.

 

[Dr Grump]

All these people want to do is get the names so they can post them on the net. Now tell me for what purpose would they want to post these names? It is not for any good reasons. I say the law should protect those names.

If you sign a petition that goes to curbing individual freedoms to a certain type of person, then you should have the courage of your convictions and man up....

If people get harassed if they are publicly named, then there are laws to deal with it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This question is soon to be debated in the USSC. I'm of the opinion that a petition is not the same as a vote, and ought to be made public. If someone believes strongly in changing a law by the initiative process, they ought to have the courage of their convictions.

IF that is the current standard, then cool. If it is not, then there is something fishy about choosing just this one issue.

My understanding here in Oregon is they just count the names in the local courthouses, then they choose two names and verify the validity of the signature, and use a sampling of 1/15th of the names to determine if the petitions are valid. Then they toss them.

I think the same practice obtains in CA. I think CA has a higher threshold for petitions than we do here in OR.

I have signed several petitions on making marijuana legal. I have never had a visit from the cops because of this. Lets make that the rule. If you signed a petition to eliminate what you thought was a bad law would have repercussions like that, would you sign?

This seems less about how petitions are done, and more about intimidation. And we can't allow intimidation into the process

Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder.

The CÁ petition signers have not proven intimidation. A few backers...funders of the petitiin drive...were boycotted and such.

Just because a few people abuse a system is no reason to keep names secret.

If there were a petition to lock up Italians or Jews or Arabs...would you want the signers names kept secret?

 

[rightwinger]

Petitions are open records. Each signature is open to validation. There is no such thing as an anonymous petition

 

[SFC Ollie]

Petitions are open records. Each signature is open to validation. There is no such thing as an anonymous petition

Validation is not public posting.

 

[rightwinger]

Petitions are open records. Each signature is open to validation. There is no such thing as an anonymous petition

Validation is not public posting.

Any member of the public has a right to examine a petition. It is a public record