ptt: I am baffled by this argument. Anonymity in petitioning is a relatively new development, a result of our increased urbanization. For most of our history, signing a petition was a public act, a public declaration.

I think that applies to the petition organizers but not the petition signers in this day and age. A signature on a petition only means that you agree it should be on a ballot. In most, but not all, cases it means that you support it. However, I know several people that would sign every and all petition with the thought that if people care enough to want a proposition, it should be debated and voted on by the people. Under the ruling from the district court they may be less likely to sign such petitions in the future.

PubliusFL: How so?I’m not following you. Policing of what? Enforcement of what? What do you mean by “such behavior” — anonymous speech?

This is refering to a previous post I made on the issue. Policing and enforcement relates to potential harassment and intimidation actions that individuals or groups may conduct on those who signed a petition to put an initiative on a ballot. Rather than try to put the signatures behind a wall the entire process should be open. Not only would people be able to see your signature, but you would be able to view those who looked you up. By providing access to such signatures without adequate safeguards to protect those individuals will make it more difficult to put controversial issues through the initiative process.

oth an election and a threshold signature requirement to put something on an election are generally aimed at accurately measuring public opinion. Such an accurate measurement is much more likely if the measurement is undistorted by people’s fear of being attacked, fired, ostracized, or even annoyed by those who disagree with them.

I am baffled by this argument. Anonymity in petitioning is a relatively new development, a result of our increased urbanization. For most of our history, signing a petition was a public act, a public declaration.

SirKev: They may wish to do so, but to provide them that cover would ineffect chill expression of opinion.

How so?

SirKev: It would also make policing easier and lead to greater enforcement which would provide an effective deterent to such behavior.

I’m not following you. Policing of what? Enforcement of what? What do you mean by “such behavior” — anonymous speech?

ArrowSmith: The harassers wish to stay anonymous.

ArrowSmith: They may wish to do so, but to provide them that cover would ineffect chill expression of opinion. To prevent that from occuring and harming our electoral process, mechanisms must be put into place that prevents that from occuring. It would also make policing easier and lead to greater enforcement which would provide an effective deterent to such behavior.

No, as I read the quote, he or she specifically states that “there should also be a record of who accesses those records.This would allow those who feel they are being harassed to see who has viewed their signatures.”

In other words, anyone who sees the list would themselves be made public. Further, he concludes with a strong statement that harassment should be punished.

Seems like a fair argument to me.

SirKev: Looking at this issue brings to mind a book I read awhile ago called “The Transparent Society”.The argument was that it was better for all members of society to have complete transparancy rather than privacy laws which attempted to put things “behind walls”.It argued that powerful and illegal interests will always have access to the private information.Whereas if it is open to all, then a kind of societial enforcement would be present.The example was police cameras.If all footage is kept private, then it gives rise to the “Big Brother” mentality.However, if all the cameras were open and available to anyone through a website, then not only can’t the criminals hide, but the police actions would be public as well.This provides a citizen enforcement mechanism as well as peer pressure to deter certain behavior.That is what I feel needs to happen here.If the signatures are to become public, they must be easily accessible to all.Ideally, there should also be a record of who accesses those records.This would allow those who feel they are being harassed to see who has viewed their signatures.Finally, there needs to be strong punishment and enforcement of harassment laws in order to deter those who wish to harm people for expressing their opinion.Without these safeguards and standards, I feel that this ruling will create a chilling effect on any initiative deemed controversial and I am not sold that any legislative action will stand up to judicial scrutiny.Without adequate protection and enforcement this ruling, while not unconstitutional, will deter some from expressing and supporting their views.

The harassers wish to stay anonymous.

Well, when someone else believes that they can decide the freedoms and rights of another group, it really isn’t that far fetched to carry it to the extreme. Afterall, if you believe you have the right to deny marriage benefits to a gay couple that have children, then you obviously don’t care about the rights of the couple or the children.

Why you should decide the ‘public policy’ regarding gays and not gays deciding for themselves, I don’t know. Care to explain how we should best lead our lives? What is the best public policy for a gay couple that has children? And is this policy the best one for you, or for the gay family? And why should it matter what you think if you aren’t gay?

That is what I feel needs to happen here. If the signatures are to become public, they must be easily accessible to all. Ideally, there should also be a record of who accesses those records. This would allow those who feel they are being harassed to see who has viewed their signatures. Finally, there needs to be strong punishment and enforcement of harassment laws in order to deter those who wish to harm people for expressing their opinion. Without these safeguards and standards, I feel that this ruling will create a chilling effect on any initiative deemed controversial and I am not sold that any legislative action will stand up to judicial scrutiny. Without adequate protection and enforcement this ruling, while not unconstitutional, will deter some from expressing and supporting their views.

So, do we really want the judges working this one out? .

“Marriage is only defined by common law. There are plenty of common law traditions that have been overruled by statute law.”

That’s a non sequiter. The fact that a definition can be changed by statute in no way implies a “civil right” to change the definition.

Yes. Just what ARE we to do with these gay people? Perhaps we can just relocate them to the gay ghettos of our cities…

Yes of course, there exist only two possibilities – redefinition of marriage or forced relocation – there are no other alternatives.

Get a grip.

Yes. Just what ARE we to do with these gay people? Perhaps we can just relocate them to the gay ghettos of our cities so that they renovate the old houses there, and we won’t have to deal with them and their incessant demands for equality. It’s just like that song, how do you solve problem like Maria?

steve:: just as there should be a law prohibiting efforts to deprive gay people of their civil rights.

Surely you don’t mean efforts to deprive gay people of their civil rights?

I think each judicial opinion should include the judges’ personal home address, phone number and email.

Don’t forget cops.

SaysYou says:

There is no “civil right” to change the definition of marriage.

That sentence makes no sense. Marriage is only defined by common law. There are plenty of common law traditions that have been overruled by statute law.

But there is a phrase called “equal protection” under the law. Which means that if you get a right, everyone else does too.

That’s such a naive, simplistic view.

Nuanced, sophisticated, tolerant people understand that it can’t really work that way. ;)

Steve: I definitely think there should be a law prohibiting harassment of petition signers, just as there should be a law prohibiting efforts to deprive gay people of their civil rights.Can’t really say which one ought to be the higher priority.

Considering if the issue were actual civil rights and not, say, issues of public policy pertaining to gay people that its supporters have decided to call a “civil right” because it sounds better politically, probably wouldn’t go on the ballot in the first place, I’m not sure how your statement pertains.

Unless, of course, it conflicts with the US Constitution. Or are you saying that the people should be able to have a state amendment to their constitution that bypasses rights enumerated in the federal one?

But there is a phrase called “equal protection” under the law. Which means that if you get a right, everyone else does too.

Steve: I’m not sure if egd is saying that marriage isn’t a civil right, or that gay people are perfectly free to get married as long as it’s to someone of the opposite sex, or whatever else his point might be, but I guess that’s the object of making such an obtuse post.

I’m not sure exactly what point you’re making. Either:
1) The people should not be allowed to amend their Constitution and be governed the way they desire.
or
2) There’s a federal right to gay marriage that I’m not aware of.

If it’s the first, then you’re the typical left-wing fascist that hates democracy and democratically formed governments.

If it’s the second, then please point out where this right is codified in the Constitution, statute, or federal case law.

I’ll skip the Shawshank Redemption quotes because they’re mildly offensive, given the context. Scorekeepers take note that the reference was not missed.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Monday afternoon put back into effect, temporarily, a federal judge’s order that protects the privacy of signers of a petition seeking a voter referendum on a gay rights law in Washington State. He did so, however, only until a further order is issued by himself or by the Court. Kennedy acted on the basis of the application, before getting a response, due this afternoon, from state officials.

Handy for animals and animal rights activists as well.

However, to the extent that petition signatures are *not* private, it would seem to be a violation of the speech and association rights of others to preclude them from demonstrting against petition signers, firing them, or taking other sanctions against those who sign petitions with which they disagree.

Well, I am Randy, and agree with these sentiments. People are free to picket whatever businesses they like.

As for Prop 8, the amount of actual harassment towards supporters of that prop was not nearly as much as people like to make out. Certainly less than what gay businesses have suffered in the past. Yet somehow, we survived, as did the republic.

I could also imagine a situation where the opponents of a petition might try to make legitimate signatures disappear– say, by offering paid circulators of the petition more than the going per-signature rate to misplace signed petitions. In such a case, I’d like to make sure that the petition that I signed was turned in.

Finally, if there are several dozen different petitions circulating, many treating of the same issue, I might not know whether I’ve signed a particular petition or not. I might want to sign a certain petition, but not to sign it twice. Again, it’d be nice if I could check the County Clerk’s website to see if I’m listed as a signer.

Still, the judgment about how secret signatures or even ballots should be is a judgment that should be made legislatively (or by voter initiative). The First Amendment and First Amendment caselaw does not preclude either option, and the court’s opinion here doesn’t persuade me to the contrary.

This part I like. Not everything should be sorted out in court.