Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, June 26, 2009
Politics Eyman Files a New Initiative
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:38 PM
This, like everything Tim Eyman files, is a terrible idea. The initiative would require the state to redact names and contact information of people who sign initiatives when someone makes a public disclosure request for the petitions. Says the Secretary of State's office:
Initiative promoter Tim Eyman is taking aim at potential harassment of signature-gatherers and people who sign their petitions. One feature of his new initiative says the names, signatures and addresses of people who sign initiatives and referenda would be blacked out before petition sheets are made public by the state Elections Division.This grows out of announced plans by some supporters of a new “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law to put online the names and addresses of all who sign petitions for Referendum 71.
Petitions signatures are public record so that the public can verify that they really are valid. And releasing a petition that has qualified for the a ballot without the stuff people write down on the petitions doesn't make any bloody sense, does it? That's like saying, "Here's your police report, but we've removed every word." Eyman's filed the measure as an initiative to the legislature—which looks like an attempt to comment on the threat to release the names of Referendum 71 signers—but this indicates he might also refile it in 2010 as an initiative to the people. The complete text, which contains a few less-terrible provisions, is here (.pdf).
1
He wants to protect signature gatherers from harassment? I've regularly seen those assholes block people's path, yell at people if they don't sign, try to drag people over to the signature gatherers' table. It's not the signature gatherers who need protection.
2
Can we file an initiative to ban Tim Eyman from living in Washington State or at least take away his initiative filing rights?
4
Jesus, Eyman's turning into the Lon Mabon of Washington. He's probably going to be filing initiatives from prison one day.
6
Ahh.. The age old tactic of manufactured fear to stir up the fearful. It's a known money maker, too.
Please, pretty please, don't send him to Oregon.
Please, pretty please, don't send him to Oregon.
7
@2 Beat me to it. Great idea. Or craft some law to prevent people from permanently attaching themselves as parasites upon the initiative process. Having some nut decide that his career should be second-guessing the political process is pathetic.
8
This is a really bad idea. And the reason he wants this is because it won't leave a record of the assholes who vote for his bullshit initiatives. If we can see who supports his destructive right wing nonsense, we'll know who to blame when things go to hell in a handbasket, like in California, initiatives original hell. The people are just not responsible enough for intitiatives. They vote with their emotions instead of their heads. The legislature is where laws should be passed.
11
The pull quote leads off with "R-71 Initiative promoter..." but is he really an R-71 promoter or a promoter of this new initiative that doesn't have a number yet? Yeah, he's a dick, but this part of the quote is incorrect, which you'll see if you click through to the Secretary of State's link.
14
If his initiative contains a provision that forbids initiative and referendum backers from using the name/address data from failed petitions for their own gain (selling or trading lists, using lists in-house for fundraising, etc), then, I'd consider it. Eyman, Gary Randall and Larry Stickney studiously avoid the subject of *their* use of personal data that petition signers provide. For example, Randall & Stickney are collecting email addresses, something not required by law. Tell me they're not using Ref 71 to build their won databases for future exploitation.
15
This is one of the most poorly-drafted initiatives I've ever read. It has intent language scattered all through it! Even if you agree with some of the provisions, it is very badly done.
And Tim, how about including in this the ability to print initiative petitions on 8.5 x 11 paper?
And Tim, how about including in this the ability to print initiative petitions on 8.5 x 11 paper?
16
Eyman and the Family Fagan have been using the initiative process for their own financial and political ends for years. Does anyone else find it strange that this initiative seeks to defend us from something that hasn't even happened?
Laws already exist that protect the integrity of the initiative process, both in the collection of signatures and in how they may be legally used, and public disclosure is part of that protection. Organizations and members of the public have been requesting and using public information from petitions for decades. It's striking that an initiative like this should be filed only when that public record information might become democratized by being broadly accessible to everyone.
Perhaps it's the specter of voters being able to check and see if their signature was recorded on a petition that they didn't sign, either through fraud or "bait and switch" techniques, that's motivating Tim and Company to protect their meal-ticket.
And am I the only one who finds it odd that the signatures of the Notaries Public on the affidavits are from May 6th 2008 and July 9th 2008? Has this self-serving "Eyman-Fagan Livelihood Protection Initiative" been sitting in a drawer all that time?
Laws already exist that protect the integrity of the initiative process, both in the collection of signatures and in how they may be legally used, and public disclosure is part of that protection. Organizations and members of the public have been requesting and using public information from petitions for decades. It's striking that an initiative like this should be filed only when that public record information might become democratized by being broadly accessible to everyone.
Perhaps it's the specter of voters being able to check and see if their signature was recorded on a petition that they didn't sign, either through fraud or "bait and switch" techniques, that's motivating Tim and Company to protect their meal-ticket.
And am I the only one who finds it odd that the signatures of the Notaries Public on the affidavits are from May 6th 2008 and July 9th 2008? Has this self-serving "Eyman-Fagan Livelihood Protection Initiative" been sitting in a drawer all that time?
17
I swear before you, my dear fellow sloggers, that if I ever win the lottery and become a multi-millionaire, I will devote a good chunk of my fortune to a constitutional referendum to eliminate to the initiative process. I'll saturate the airwaves with glurgy ads of wal-mart type people tearfully talking about how some referendum did them wrong. I'll buy a prominent preacher and have him rail against it. I'll play every dirty trick in the book, and pull out every emotional stop. By the time I'm done, the initiative process will be as popular as Gary Ridgeway.
Then I will move throughout the west, in my private railcar (after all, I have to do something or myself. I'm not a saint, you know), and wreak similar havoc through the other states that have this stupid process.
So, with that said, just how does one win the lottery?
Then I will move throughout the west, in my private railcar (after all, I have to do something or myself. I'm not a saint, you know), and wreak similar havoc through the other states that have this stupid process.
So, with that said, just how does one win the lottery?
18
Yeah, that pro choice initiative really sucked - and the public disclosure laws - or making weed the lowest priority - and we don't know how much good legislation passed because of the threat of an initiative.
20
There are specific exceptions to the PDA including the use of names for commercial purposes. I don't believe that this is a constitutional issue.
Certainly the contention that these names need to made available for verification is specious.
Names are not checked one by one but rather by random sampling and even in those close cases where most or all tghe names are checked, how would individuals be able to do anything but check voter registration? The signatures would or should never be released and certainly not the database of all signatures.
Certainly the contention that these names need to made available for verification is specious.
Names are not checked one by one but rather by random sampling and even in those close cases where most or all tghe names are checked, how would individuals be able to do anything but check voter registration? The signatures would or should never be released and certainly not the database of all signatures.
21
From: Tim Eyman
The soonest this initiative would become effective, should we choose to pursue it, would be December, 2010. So this will not interfere with anyone who wants to go Medieval on people who sign R-71 petitions.
But that would be the last time it would be legal to retaliate against people for exercising their First Amendment right to sign an initiative or referendum petition on any topic.
King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick recently ruled against the disclosure of the names of people exercising their rights of free association at Seattle City Light. He said any public documents will have the names redacted to protect the privacy of those people -- that's exactly what this initiative would do for people who sign petitions.
The principle behind the Public Disclosure Act is that the people have a right to know what the government is doing; it is not about the people having a right to know what other private citizens are doing. The privacy of the ballot booth -- meaning no one has a right to know who you voted for/against -- is a fundamental principle that is being violated here. Signing a petition is core political speech and it deserves to be protected.
The Public Disclosure Act is not mandated in the Constitution - it is a law, and it is perfectly legal to change that law via the legislative process or via the initiative process. Of course it's not unconstitutional to change the law to provide a remedy to this potential for abuse.
And don't think for a second that harassment doesn't occur and that citizens don't need protection -- we have documents and pictures:
http://www.permanent-offense.org/harassm…
If that website address gets cut off, go to our website (www.permanent-offense.org) and click on the icon "Petitioner Harassment"
People have a right to participate in the ballot measure process and no one should be deterred from doing so by the threat of people who oppose the measure.
It should not be difficult for progressives to imagine a progressive issue done as an initiative and the potential for abuse by 'right wing wackos' who would target the signers of those petitions. This potential for abuse cuts both ways.
Let me reiterate that this proposed initiative won't prevent people who want those R-71 petitions -- but it'll be the last time such potential of abuse is available to the opponents of a measure.
P.S. Toby, the intent language is used throughout the measure to make the people's intent crystal clear. The Code Revisor is currently reviewing our proposed initiative text to ensure we comply with all drafting rules. We'll modify it if necessary.
More...
The soonest this initiative would become effective, should we choose to pursue it, would be December, 2010. So this will not interfere with anyone who wants to go Medieval on people who sign R-71 petitions.
But that would be the last time it would be legal to retaliate against people for exercising their First Amendment right to sign an initiative or referendum petition on any topic.
King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick recently ruled against the disclosure of the names of people exercising their rights of free association at Seattle City Light. He said any public documents will have the names redacted to protect the privacy of those people -- that's exactly what this initiative would do for people who sign petitions.
The principle behind the Public Disclosure Act is that the people have a right to know what the government is doing; it is not about the people having a right to know what other private citizens are doing. The privacy of the ballot booth -- meaning no one has a right to know who you voted for/against -- is a fundamental principle that is being violated here. Signing a petition is core political speech and it deserves to be protected.
The Public Disclosure Act is not mandated in the Constitution - it is a law, and it is perfectly legal to change that law via the legislative process or via the initiative process. Of course it's not unconstitutional to change the law to provide a remedy to this potential for abuse.
And don't think for a second that harassment doesn't occur and that citizens don't need protection -- we have documents and pictures:
http://www.permanent-offense.org/harassm…
If that website address gets cut off, go to our website (www.permanent-offense.org) and click on the icon "Petitioner Harassment"
People have a right to participate in the ballot measure process and no one should be deterred from doing so by the threat of people who oppose the measure.
It should not be difficult for progressives to imagine a progressive issue done as an initiative and the potential for abuse by 'right wing wackos' who would target the signers of those petitions. This potential for abuse cuts both ways.
Let me reiterate that this proposed initiative won't prevent people who want those R-71 petitions -- but it'll be the last time such potential of abuse is available to the opponents of a measure.
P.S. Toby, the intent language is used throughout the measure to make the people's intent crystal clear. The Code Revisor is currently reviewing our proposed initiative text to ensure we comply with all drafting rules. We'll modify it if necessary.
22
From: Tim Eyman
You wrote: Petitions signatures are public record so that the public can verify that they really are valid.
Response: The Secretary of State is tasked with doing that. When campaigns turn in signatures for a measure, the Secretary of State does a representative, random sampling of signatures on the petitions and compares them to their signatures on the original voter registration cards. Those signatures must appear EXACTLY THE SAME or else they are rejected.
As comment #20 (abc) states: "the contention that these names need to made available for verification is specious." abc is correct that only the Secretary of State has access to the signatures on the original voter registration forms anyway. Only they can verify if the signatures match.
Once the Secretary of State determines that enough EXACTLY MATCHED signatures were submitted, the measure is certified for the ballot. No after-the-fact review by opponents after the certification is done is gonna change that.
You wrote: Petitions signatures are public record so that the public can verify that they really are valid.
Response: The Secretary of State is tasked with doing that. When campaigns turn in signatures for a measure, the Secretary of State does a representative, random sampling of signatures on the petitions and compares them to their signatures on the original voter registration cards. Those signatures must appear EXACTLY THE SAME or else they are rejected.
As comment #20 (abc) states: "the contention that these names need to made available for verification is specious." abc is correct that only the Secretary of State has access to the signatures on the original voter registration forms anyway. Only they can verify if the signatures match.
Once the Secretary of State determines that enough EXACTLY MATCHED signatures were submitted, the measure is certified for the ballot. No after-the-fact review by opponents after the certification is done is gonna change that.
23
From: Tim Eyman
You wrote: Petitions signatures are public record so that the public can verify that they really are valid.
Response: The Secretary of State is tasked to do that. When a campaign turns in petitions for a measure, the Secretary of State does a representative, random sampling and compares that sample of signatures to the signatures on the original voter registration forms. The signatures only count if they MATCH EXACTLY. As comment #20 (abc) rightly points out, only the Secretary of State has access to the signatures on the original voter registration cards anyway.
Once the Secretary of State determines that enough EXACTLY MATCHED voter signatures were submitted, they certify the measure for the ballot. No after-the-fact check by opponents following the certification of the measure is ever gonna change that.
As comment #20 (abc) says: the contention that these names need to made available for verification is specious.
You wrote: Petitions signatures are public record so that the public can verify that they really are valid.
Response: The Secretary of State is tasked to do that. When a campaign turns in petitions for a measure, the Secretary of State does a representative, random sampling and compares that sample of signatures to the signatures on the original voter registration forms. The signatures only count if they MATCH EXACTLY. As comment #20 (abc) rightly points out, only the Secretary of State has access to the signatures on the original voter registration cards anyway.
Once the Secretary of State determines that enough EXACTLY MATCHED voter signatures were submitted, they certify the measure for the ballot. No after-the-fact check by opponents following the certification of the measure is ever gonna change that.
As comment #20 (abc) says: the contention that these names need to made available for verification is specious.
24
Tim said, "Once the Secretary of State determines that enough EXACTLY MATCHED signatures were submitted, the measure is certified for the ballot. No after-the-fact review by opponents after the certification is done is gonna change that."
But, as ABC noted, the signatures are verified by random sampling. Believe it or not, there are groups that actually review the signatures (and for better reasons than posting the names/addresses of petition signers online).
3rd party review has been essential to preserving the integrity of the signature gathering process in several states.Fraud, forgery, deceit, bait-and-switch tactics: these are not stymied by the Secretary of State's signature review process... and yes, they are a still a massive problem.
If you want a specific example, last year the Nevada NEA got a property tax cap kicked off the ballot. This was after the Secretary of State certified the measure and rejected the state NEA's objections over the validity of many affidavits filed with the signatures.
Tim, I know you're pushing a tax cap this year, and I don't want to debate the merits of your proposal. However, if you do make it to the ballot, the voters have every right to know (and have the ability to independently verify) that your initiatives made it to the ballot legally.
Without sweeping reforms to the signature gathering process, making petitions unavailable for 3rd party review could absolutely decimate what integrity the initiative process has.
More...
But, as ABC noted, the signatures are verified by random sampling. Believe it or not, there are groups that actually review the signatures (and for better reasons than posting the names/addresses of petition signers online).
3rd party review has been essential to preserving the integrity of the signature gathering process in several states.Fraud, forgery, deceit, bait-and-switch tactics: these are not stymied by the Secretary of State's signature review process... and yes, they are a still a massive problem.
If you want a specific example, last year the Nevada NEA got a property tax cap kicked off the ballot. This was after the Secretary of State certified the measure and rejected the state NEA's objections over the validity of many affidavits filed with the signatures.
Tim, I know you're pushing a tax cap this year, and I don't want to debate the merits of your proposal. However, if you do make it to the ballot, the voters have every right to know (and have the ability to independently verify) that your initiatives made it to the ballot legally.
Without sweeping reforms to the signature gathering process, making petitions unavailable for 3rd party review could absolutely decimate what integrity the initiative process has.
25
nb wrote: the voters have every right to know (and have the ability to independently verify) that your initiatives made it to the ballot legally.
response: again, after-the-fact, second-guessing by opponents isn't going to change the outcome -- the measure will still be certified for the ballot. remember, getting enough signatures is only to allow a public vote -- if the people don't support it, then it won't become law.
Regardless, our initiative to protect the initiative process is intended to protect citizens who collect signatures and citizens who sign petitions -- to make sure their privacy isn't violated and to not have them put in danger.
The courts have been very clear about striking down policies that deter citizens from participating in the process. Intimidation should not be allowed. Making the process safer is nothing but a good thing.
response: again, after-the-fact, second-guessing by opponents isn't going to change the outcome -- the measure will still be certified for the ballot. remember, getting enough signatures is only to allow a public vote -- if the people don't support it, then it won't become law.
Regardless, our initiative to protect the initiative process is intended to protect citizens who collect signatures and citizens who sign petitions -- to make sure their privacy isn't violated and to not have them put in danger.
The courts have been very clear about striking down policies that deter citizens from participating in the process. Intimidation should not be allowed. Making the process safer is nothing but a good thing.
26
nb wrote: last year the Nevada NEA got a property tax cap kicked off the ballot
response: if you read the story, the voter signatures were rejected not because they weren't valid, but because the people who collected the signatures didn't do the affidavits correctly. BUT THE TEST IS WHETHER THERE WERE ENOUGH VALID VOTER SIGNATURES -- THERE WERE, BUT A BUREAUCRATIC RULE STOPPED THOSE VOTERS FROM HAVING THEIR VOTES COUNT.
our initiative to protect the initiative process says that a valid voter signature is a valid voter signature and a valid voter signature should count. that's the test: are there enough voters who support this initiative to have a public vote on it? In the Nevada case, the voters right to vote was taken away because of bureaucratic interference invalidated perfectly valid voter signatures. That nothing that Washington should ever try to emulate.
response: if you read the story, the voter signatures were rejected not because they weren't valid, but because the people who collected the signatures didn't do the affidavits correctly. BUT THE TEST IS WHETHER THERE WERE ENOUGH VALID VOTER SIGNATURES -- THERE WERE, BUT A BUREAUCRATIC RULE STOPPED THOSE VOTERS FROM HAVING THEIR VOTES COUNT.
our initiative to protect the initiative process says that a valid voter signature is a valid voter signature and a valid voter signature should count. that's the test: are there enough voters who support this initiative to have a public vote on it? In the Nevada case, the voters right to vote was taken away because of bureaucratic interference invalidated perfectly valid voter signatures. That nothing that Washington should ever try to emulate.
27
Howdy Tim,
I mentioned the affidavits in my post. It was simply one example of the times 3rd party review has been essential to the initiative process.
Your first response:
"...again, after-the-fact, second-guessing by opponents isn't going to change the outcome -- the measure will still be certified for the ballot. remember, getting enough signatures is only to allow a public vote -- if the people don't support it, then it won't become law." (emphasis mine)
The whole point of the NEA story was to point out that after-the-fact second-guessing by opponents did get the measure kicked off the ballot after certification because there were legal violations committed by the proponents. I realize that this example does not address the issue of names being blacked out, as you mention in your second response.
Okay, now to address the importance of 3rd party signature review...
One example I found was in Arizona (again!) where anti-affirmative action petitioners were blatantly misleading the public, asking people if they were Obama supporters and subsequently asking people to sign their petition to "end discrimination" (that was just a shot at them, on to my point). Now even with these deceptive tactics, they weren't getting enough signatures, so what did they do? They committed fraud! However, it wasn't the Secretary of State that caught it, it was a third party group .
Now I understand if you don't want to go over to HuffPo and drive up their traffic, but let me copy the key quote here:
"State Representative Kyrsten Sinema organized a cadre of 1,000 volunteers who worked around the clock at a local union hall for 18 days in order to eyeball 325,000 signatures turned in by Connerly's Arizona allies. Perhaps the most interesting signature they found was from one "Momar Kadafie" -- a variant on Libyan leader Muammar Qaddaffi's name. (See the signature page here.) Arizona's anti-affirmative action "Kadafie" listed his country as "Saudie Arabia" and his hometown as "Tebet," alongside an Arizona zip code of 85007. That signature on a campaign circular came right after others from Jimmy Carter and "Jerry" Ford, representing quite the pow-wow of world leaders (both living and dead). Another page featured John Hancocks from John and Robert Kennedy." (emphasis mine)
Now these are clearly the most blatant and ridiculous examples, but in the end, opponents had almost 140,000 signatures kicked off the ballot. Now, random sampling may have caught some of these, but the key word is "may." When it comes to the integrity of elections, I prefer to not roll dice.
Sinema, in the HuffPo article, asserts that their checking differed in procedure from that used by the secretary of state - "...some initiative pages appeared to indicate that a group of signature gatherers had simply passed their sheets around in a circle, signing each one." This a fraud technique that random sampling will not easily catch, as the handwriting/signatures will still look different on every page. With voter registration information readily available in many databases, it can be crucial to have a method of 3rd party review for qualified initiatives.
So, there were my two examples for you, one in which 3rd party review helped invalidate over 140,000 signatures, one in which a question was kicked off the ballot after it was approved by the Secretary of State.
Yes, there are people who will post the information of petition signers online for no other purpose than identifying the people who signed the petition. However there are also groups who use this information, a public record, to ascertain the validity of a measure that has qualified for the ballot. Petitions that don't qualify for the ballot are destroyed, so if R-71 doesn't get on the ballot, the information will not be public record nor will it be available for posting online. So, the only names that are available for outside review are those on petitions that have supposedly gathered the requisite number of signatures.
I'm not sure what the current law is, but I'm guessing Washington does (or should) have free speech protections for those who sign petitions. But, as I said in my first reply, making qualified petitions unavailable for 3rd party review could undermine the integrity of the initiative process... You cannot censor public record because it might be used for harassment. Now, say I was charged with a DUI, or child molestation, or whatever... That information is public record even if I wasn't convicted, but if someone uses this information to harass me (if MADD ran a vicious intimidation campaign), there are legal protections in place to ensure that the harasser is punished.
For future reference, please cite examples of how this information has been used maliciously in the past. Your previous link dealt with the harassment of petitioners and signers during the signature gathering process (and there are laws against that). You did not, however, show any examples of what your initiative is purporting to prevent. Yes, there have been cases of nonviolent harassment (emails, letters) to Prop 8 supporters in California, and I agree that this sort of behavior is unacceptable, not to mention ineffective (as opposed to boycotting businesses, which I believe to be perfectly acceptable). There are, however, other ways to protect against harassment.
A final question: how do you think your law would hold up in court? It will, in all likelihood, be challenged and, given the result of the lawsuit to block the release of Prop 8 donor names, I'm assuming that precedent would not be on your side.
More...
I mentioned the affidavits in my post. It was simply one example of the times 3rd party review has been essential to the initiative process.
Your first response:
"...again, after-the-fact, second-guessing by opponents isn't going to change the outcome -- the measure will still be certified for the ballot. remember, getting enough signatures is only to allow a public vote -- if the people don't support it, then it won't become law." (emphasis mine)
The whole point of the NEA story was to point out that after-the-fact second-guessing by opponents did get the measure kicked off the ballot after certification because there were legal violations committed by the proponents. I realize that this example does not address the issue of names being blacked out, as you mention in your second response.
Okay, now to address the importance of 3rd party signature review...
One example I found was in Arizona (again!) where anti-affirmative action petitioners were blatantly misleading the public, asking people if they were Obama supporters and subsequently asking people to sign their petition to "end discrimination" (that was just a shot at them, on to my point). Now even with these deceptive tactics, they weren't getting enough signatures, so what did they do? They committed fraud! However, it wasn't the Secretary of State that caught it, it was a third party group .
Now I understand if you don't want to go over to HuffPo and drive up their traffic, but let me copy the key quote here:
"State Representative Kyrsten Sinema organized a cadre of 1,000 volunteers who worked around the clock at a local union hall for 18 days in order to eyeball 325,000 signatures turned in by Connerly's Arizona allies. Perhaps the most interesting signature they found was from one "Momar Kadafie" -- a variant on Libyan leader Muammar Qaddaffi's name. (See the signature page here.) Arizona's anti-affirmative action "Kadafie" listed his country as "Saudie Arabia" and his hometown as "Tebet," alongside an Arizona zip code of 85007. That signature on a campaign circular came right after others from Jimmy Carter and "Jerry" Ford, representing quite the pow-wow of world leaders (both living and dead). Another page featured John Hancocks from John and Robert Kennedy." (emphasis mine)
Now these are clearly the most blatant and ridiculous examples, but in the end, opponents had almost 140,000 signatures kicked off the ballot. Now, random sampling may have caught some of these, but the key word is "may." When it comes to the integrity of elections, I prefer to not roll dice.
Sinema, in the HuffPo article, asserts that their checking differed in procedure from that used by the secretary of state - "...some initiative pages appeared to indicate that a group of signature gatherers had simply passed their sheets around in a circle, signing each one." This a fraud technique that random sampling will not easily catch, as the handwriting/signatures will still look different on every page. With voter registration information readily available in many databases, it can be crucial to have a method of 3rd party review for qualified initiatives.
So, there were my two examples for you, one in which 3rd party review helped invalidate over 140,000 signatures, one in which a question was kicked off the ballot after it was approved by the Secretary of State.
Yes, there are people who will post the information of petition signers online for no other purpose than identifying the people who signed the petition. However there are also groups who use this information, a public record, to ascertain the validity of a measure that has qualified for the ballot. Petitions that don't qualify for the ballot are destroyed, so if R-71 doesn't get on the ballot, the information will not be public record nor will it be available for posting online. So, the only names that are available for outside review are those on petitions that have supposedly gathered the requisite number of signatures.
I'm not sure what the current law is, but I'm guessing Washington does (or should) have free speech protections for those who sign petitions. But, as I said in my first reply, making qualified petitions unavailable for 3rd party review could undermine the integrity of the initiative process... You cannot censor public record because it might be used for harassment. Now, say I was charged with a DUI, or child molestation, or whatever... That information is public record even if I wasn't convicted, but if someone uses this information to harass me (if MADD ran a vicious intimidation campaign), there are legal protections in place to ensure that the harasser is punished.
For future reference, please cite examples of how this information has been used maliciously in the past. Your previous link dealt with the harassment of petitioners and signers during the signature gathering process (and there are laws against that). You did not, however, show any examples of what your initiative is purporting to prevent. Yes, there have been cases of nonviolent harassment (emails, letters) to Prop 8 supporters in California, and I agree that this sort of behavior is unacceptable, not to mention ineffective (as opposed to boycotting businesses, which I believe to be perfectly acceptable). There are, however, other ways to protect against harassment.
A final question: how do you think your law would hold up in court? It will, in all likelihood, be challenged and, given the result of the lawsuit to block the release of Prop 8 donor names, I'm assuming that precedent would not be on your side.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (27) RSS