Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Judge Shields Names of R-71 Signers

Posted by on Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM

The names and addresses of everyone who signed Referendum 71, which puts the rights of same-sex partners up to a vote, will remain cloaked from public view, according to a federal ruling today. US District Court Judge Benjamin Settle issued a 17-page decision, siding with John and Jane Doe, who sought a temporary restraining order on the basis that releasing their names to the gays would cause them harm. Secretary of State Sam Reed was the defendant in the lawsuit, arguing that petitions are lawmaking documents and should be subject to the same transparency as any other mechanism used to set policy. Reed's spokesman, Brian Zylstra, has just issued a statement:

Our office has followed the state law that says referendum petitions are public records and thus should be made available upon request. We believe in open government and think the judge’s decision is a step away from open government. While we are disappointed in the judge’s decision, we respect it and will continue to withhold these petitions from public viewing unless there is a different ruling in the future. When people sign a referendum or initiative petition, they are trying to change state law. We believe that changing state law should be open to public view.

The case stems from Brian Murphy, who blogs as the Gay Curmudgeon, filing a records request for the petitions in late July. He intended to post the information on, thereby enabling gay people to civilly confront those who signed the petition. But the craven bigots who filed the referendum, Protect Marriage Washington, argued in federal court that releasing the names and addresses would cause petition signers “immediate and irreparable deprivations of their First Amendment liberties." The group said that “individuals whose names are already connected with Referendum 71 have been subjected to threats, harassment, and reprisals simply for exercising their First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.” On July 29, US District Court Judge Benjamin Settle issued a temporary injunction that prevented the state from releasing the information, and last week he announced he would resolve the matter today.

Settle's opinion rests largely on the ideas that releasing petition signatures carries no public benefit, and that signing petitions, like the right to free speech, may be done anonymously. Three excerpts of his ruling are after the jump.

The first one comes form page 10:


From page 12:


And page 12:


I'm waiting on a call back from the Secretary of State's office to hear if they plan to appeal the decision.


Comments (85) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Save our families APPROVE Ref.71!
Posted by One 4 All! on September 12, 2009 at 11:48 AM · Report this
#83 and 85 -- AND ALL THE OTHERS

The message thing about how to vote is a giant problem.

The pro gay side votes APPROVE Ref. 71 - that is ON the ballot, where you mark the oval.

We APPROVE to keep the law on the books.

Tell you friends and supporters, it is counter intuitive, but, that is the way it works in this state. APPROVE 71 to KEEP the current law.

Go, out and tell all.(the bigots have the same problem, many of their kind want to say YES, kick the queers)
Posted by Ace, number One on September 12, 2009 at 12:27 AM · Report this
mackro 83
82: The anti-gay folks want it on the ballot so they can REJECT it

if you are pro-domestic-partnership, you want to APPROVE the referendum.
Posted by mackro on September 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM · Report this
What the hell, why is "Washington Families Standing Together", a supposed pro-gay organization trying to get Ref-71 approved at the same time that "Protect Marriage Washington", a christian conservative group is ALSO trying to get it passed?

I seriously want to help gays get more rights including gay marriage, but why are both groups with distinctly separate goals trying to get the same referendum passed?
Posted by grimson on September 11, 2009 at 10:19 AM · Report this

Will - and does that effort convince a single person to vote or raise a single dollar for the media buy?

Honey, get you old queer self to work on something that really helps, the campaign is on, for real, remember the word VOTERS.
Posted by Fred on the Hill on September 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM · Report this
#78 - you are a nutcase. Trying to make an off the wall theory into fact.

Bet it is not, a sitting Federal Judge with 30 years of judicial background would not be that stupid.

But, you do feel better, right?
Posted by Evanian on September 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 79
Obviously that judge is one of the activist extremists that signed it.

As we will find out when I post a copy next to the Fremont Bridge.
Posted by Will in Seattle on September 11, 2009 at 9:47 AM · Report this
Surprised that no one has mentioned that the Judge's name, Ben Settle, is probably on the list.
Posted by Shelton on September 11, 2009 at 9:22 AM · Report this
Who is John Bailo? Is there more we can learn about him and his bigotry here?
Posted by hatredisaselfdestructiveevil on September 11, 2009 at 9:06 AM · Report this
Whether or not they release the names doesn't change the fact that it will be on the ballot. All it changes is whether or not these people are harassed about signing the petition.

R-71 is the issue, not finding out through legal means who the bigots are. We already know who they are, we're just looking for justification in harassing them. Let's focus on defeating them on the ballot, then call it a day.
Posted by d-squared on September 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 75
@ 65, what possible reason can someone have to not want to email a slog tip?
Posted by Matt from Denver on September 11, 2009 at 8:50 AM · Report this
Lurleen 74
How you can help - several people have asked how they can help and who the religious organizations are that support the domestic partnership law. All that information is available at the WAFST website

The list of supportive clergy and congregations is on the front page under "headline news". If you're a religious person and you see the name of your clergy or congregation on the list, contact them to see how they're planning to be proactive. If they're not, urge them to be. If they're not even on the list in the first place, let them know why you think they should be. It all comes down to each of us working the contacts we have.
Posted by Lurleen on September 11, 2009 at 8:26 AM · Report this
Baconcat 73
@70: The difference between a vote and a petition for an R&I process is that the petition is supposed to function as a legislative act. Just as you need a minimum amount of assent in the legislature, you need the same on a petition. And just as you are told who voted what way on a bill or amendments to those bills, you are given access to the petition forms. Should the names of those who attempted to amend SB5688 with a referendum clause be made private? Of course not.

The right to R&I was granted respective of this knowledge, which is why the state is adamant about their right to release these petition forms.

R&I petitions are not voting, they're an act of governing, so conflating signing a petition with voting is not only stupid, it's irresponsible advocacy.
Posted by Baconcat on September 11, 2009 at 8:21 AM · Report this
MLK had it.
Savage not so much.
Posted by Leaderless on September 11, 2009 at 8:13 AM · Report this
john t 71
"Fundamental dignity"? I think they used that phrase a lot back in the 50s when they were talking about segregation.
Posted by john t on September 11, 2009 at 8:09 AM · Report this
raindrop 70
This is good. There is no value in harassing R-71 signers. And I don't buy Brian Murphy's assertion that we can engage them -- what -- over tea with cucumber sandwiches? No. If this had gone forward, some bigot's home would be vandalized the more immature members of our community.
There's also the fundamental dignity that all citizens should have in voting or signing petitions - that our vote or signature is not for public consumption except for validation purposes.
Posted by raindrop on September 11, 2009 at 7:36 AM · Report this
Come on guys, that's not an activist judge. That's a sensible American judge. Activist judges are liberal. Get it straight.

You're allowed to make law from the bench based on political and religious ideology, as long as it's conservative political and religious ideology.
Posted by Root on September 11, 2009 at 7:31 AM · Report this
Ruler Of The Universe Supreme (ROT-US) @33 is John Bailo.
Posted by Troll outing on September 11, 2009 at 7:30 AM · Report this
"Boycott the ballot entirely. Screw the dems who let this bullshit fall on the heads of gays and lesbians over and over again. "

Now THERE'S a remarkably retarded idea! Cede your rights in a pissy fit that no one will even know about.

Posted by Did you think that up yourself? on September 11, 2009 at 6:13 AM · Report this
That's interesting.
You know, Hitler was gay.
Posted by Rainbow is the new Brown on September 11, 2009 at 5:50 AM · Report this
Dan you need to have a feedback form for slog tips. Not everyone wants to keep logging into their email to send tips.

Alan Turning, a great computer scientist and instrumental in breaking the enemy code machines in WW2, also happened to be gay. So during that time after they won the war being able to read the enemy's coded messages thanks to this genius, the UK government harassed him to suicide for being gay.
The Prime Minister just apologized to him now.
Posted by Slog tip on September 11, 2009 at 5:14 AM · Report this
Please list churches working to pass R71.
We will be challenging their tax status.
Posted by Washington State Tax Project on September 11, 2009 at 5:04 AM · Report this

Federal judges are appointed for life.

Never impeached, never. Or at least only a few times in American history, for taking bribes.

Sorry to tell you that, it is why they have so much power.

Reading the decision, I am impressed. This judge wants full review of his decision, he fashioned it on the biggest issue in the Bill of rights, un fettered right of free political speech, even stressing the so American, historical, version of the non identified speaker.

It will go to the Supreme Court, and he will be a bit famous.
Big constitutional issues here, that can re shape the disclosure laws for every state in America.

Sweeping scope. You my not agree, but the judge did not back away from the challenge to the disclosure laws based on his fear of constitutional issues. In fact he put them front and center in his decision.

He seeks/relishes review. He will relish the appeal, since he set the terms of the debate going forward.

Oh, well, will take many years to sort out. No emergency here. Just a small time election and a new take on political free speech that has sprang to life.... that could tear at sunhine laws across America.
Posted by Clyde on September 11, 2009 at 2:52 AM · Report this
#47 - nothing out for you - but - I think the on line stuff has lost the needed on the ground working with real people focus of a real ballot campaign.

All the chit chat between supporters will not get one extra person to the polls.... if we do not move to the next phase.

In Seattle nothing is happening on the ground, nothing. I understand you are trying to motivate based on the needs of two month age - now we MUST go to work, and the task is large and daunting, working with real voters on our side to make sure sure they vote.

I am gay and linked to many people. Every body is fashioning their own mini campaigns to do something because there is no real plan as to what to do in Seattle.

15, yes only fifteen hours a WEEK of phoning is all I can find... the sum total of the campaign giant phone banking... geeze.. Done that three times. My mom spends that much time on the phone every week.

Oh, send money. Go to the site one more time - have it memorized.

What now? And, please, don't deny that you have links to the central campaign. You are the only consistent link I have seen anywhere.

So, what next? (I did go to the bakery and buy 40.00 worth of cookies, they are great, and have been giving them out to everybody in my office. Of course they are all supporters already, but, seemed to like the sugar.)

Eating cookies as we loose because of a no action central campaign that is not rallying its base will be small consolation.

No more posts from me, I am going to figure out my own small planet campaign plan. In truth, that is all that is left for most of us in 8 short weeks.
Posted by Aarondia on September 11, 2009 at 2:40 AM · Report this
Boycott the ballot entirely. Screw the dems who let this bullshit fall on the heads of gays and lesbians over and over again.
Posted by RDM on September 11, 2009 at 1:03 AM · Report this
Posted by RDM on September 11, 2009 at 12:55 AM · Report this
mackro 59
Lurleen, is there something else one can do to help the R-71 campaign besides telling everyone "Approve R-71" and donating money?

For example, Are there churches supportive of approval of R-71 which some folks can help work with? I think Washington state voters would be more charmed if they heard that there are churches in support of domestic partnership right expansion... it would create a juxtaposition that would make Randall/Stickney seem as hideous as they really are.

The biggest challenge to approve R-71 is making the Approve R-71 work... shit like this court action is a distraction, *but* possibly good fuel for anger and hence more concentrated support for the Approve R-71, IMHO.

Original Andrew: you made your point on almost every R-71 thread. Thanks for your cynicism. Now please shut the fuck up.
Posted by mackro on September 11, 2009 at 12:26 AM · Report this
Michael from Washington 58
Five minutes after reading this article, I find this:…

Yeah, that's it. I've snapped.

Anyone happen to know something a high school student can do to help influence this campaign?
Posted by Michael from Washington on September 11, 2009 at 12:13 AM · Report this
This seems far less likely to result in the disclosure of the signatures than it does the overturning of any state laws requiring disclosure
Posted by Reader1 on September 11, 2009 at 12:07 AM · Report this
Political speech--participation in the political process--is our most protected type of speech. Our right to freedom of political speech is what's called a "fundamental right." That label carries magnificent significance in constitutional law. When a law infringes on a fundamental right, the law is almost always unconstitutional.

Anonymous political speech is just that--anonymous. The best example is the Federalist Papers (mentioned in the opinion), which is political speech written under a pseudonym.

These concepts are the result of decades of Supreme Court rulings.
Posted by California on September 10, 2009 at 11:25 PM · Report this
Quincy 55
@53 - Obvs: Gay marriage = political speech (has been hotly debated, regulated, legislated) therefore the state has no authority to prohibit the free exercise thereof. Done and done.
Posted by Quincy on September 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM · Report this
Quincy 54
Legal Eagle @52 - I am sure I am not the only one who never heard of "the fundamental right to anonymous political speech." WTF does that mean? Was that invented before today?
Posted by Quincy on September 10, 2009 at 10:54 PM · Report this


1. I am not diverted, just bitching.

2. I have continually posted that the continual posts worrying about no. of signatures fraud in getting signatures worrying about it making the ballot are a diversion, so I am with you, actually, in being against diversions.

3. I'm a straight guy with friends all over the state. Some on the right, some on the left, some in the middle. Most far more apolitical than me.

What IS the short ten word explanation and message on R 71 to convince nongay nonurban noninformed undecided voters in 10 seconds to vote "approve"?

To inform, convince and cut off the right wing attack?

ten words not enough, okay, what's the 30 word pitch?

everyone join in.........

Posted by @43 on September 10, 2009 at 10:49 PM · Report this
There are three levels of injunctive relief. From shortest to longest in duration, they are temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions.

A TRO lasts for ten days and can be granted without notice to the party that is to be restrained from acting. Within that ten-day period, the court will hear arguments from both parties whether a preliminary injunction should issue.

A preliminary injunction stops the restrained party from acting until there's a trial on the merits of the plaintiff's claims. One of the things a plaintiff has to show to get a prelim is a likelihood of success on the merits of their underlying claim.

Here, that claim is a First Amendment challenge to the state law authorizing release of the names based on the argument that signing a referendum petition is protected anonymous political speech. A sub-issue is whether signing such a petition is a waiver of the fundamental right to anonymous political speech.

To satisfy this portion of the prelim injunction test, all this court had to do was find that there was better than a 50/50 chance that the plaintiffs will succeed on those claims at trial. So, the prelim is effective until those issues are resolved. If the plaintiffs win at that trial, they will get a permanent injunction, which will--you guessed it--permanently bar the release of the names under that state law.

Probably more than you wanted to know, but there's your crash course in injunctive relief.
Posted by California on September 10, 2009 at 10:47 PM · Report this
Quincy 51
Page 10 would seem to prohibit the Secretary of State's office from even looking at the names on the petitions, otherwise anonymity is compromised, therefore the verification process is a violation of this ruling, therefore initiative petitions, once turned in can not be examined, thus can never qualify for the ballot, therefore the initiative process itself is overturned. Hooray for activist judges!
Posted by Quincy on September 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM · Report this
Original Andrew 50
Wow, so the WA Secretary of State stopped caring about whether people who signed the R-71 were voters, or even apparently real people, now no one's allowed to see who signed?

Color me shocked that this whole gay-bashing process has been a huge fraud from the beginning.

I'm sure the results showing R-71's overwhelming rejection will be announced before the polls open.
Posted by Original Andrew on September 10, 2009 at 10:30 PM · Report this
How does one educate a fool?

One does not.

A time is coming when the fight for your rights will require much more than clever retorts, peaceful protests and lofty lectures. Then, we will know how much you value them and what you are willing to do and to sacrifice to have them and to keep them.
Posted by yawp on September 10, 2009 at 10:26 PM · Report this
Yeah I'm aware that speech covers more than verbalization. I'm simply not aware how it could participating in the procedures of law-making could be considered speech.

After reading the entire opinion I think by far the most relevant point is that SCOTUS determined that requiring signature gatherers to wear name tags violated the 1st amendment.

I find this lumping of the concrete actions required to make law into the realm of debate and communication covered by the 1st amendment troubling. Given the 1st amendment doesn't require any initiative process at all, I fail to see how the 1st amendment would speak to the anonymity required of the process.
Posted by daniel123sdfkajsd on September 10, 2009 at 10:01 PM · Report this
Lurleen 47
@43 your interest in attacking me is really strange. your willingness to believe that i do nothing other than blog is equally strange. not sure why you've got it out for me, but i hope you feel better soon and redirect your bile towards the people who deserve it: the anti-domestic partnership assholes forcing this vote.
Posted by Lurleen on September 10, 2009 at 9:36 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 46
Typical Christianist nonsense: They want to "stand up for their faith", but not if it inconveniences them in anyway. How sad it must be to have such little confidence your beliefs that you don't even have the courage to publicly acknowledge your Christian principles.

I have a feeling that, when you get right down to it, if Loveschild had a choice between standing with Jesus at Calvary or a shopping spree at Ross, you'd find her at Ross.

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." (Matthew 26:34)
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on September 10, 2009 at 9:23 PM · Report this
Lunkhead 45
It would be nice if this ruling could invalidate the whole stupid initiative process. These initiatives are almost always used by well funded special interests to work around the normal legislative process. They don't serve their intended goal of allowing the individual citizens to form legislation neglected by politicians.

I say if a judge rules that's illegal to expose the signatures than the whole citizens initiative thing is invalid as written and will require amendment of the state constitution to be re instigated.
Posted by Lunkhead on September 10, 2009 at 9:21 PM · Report this
# 42


Smart judge, this all gets very complicated when it about political free speech - in that - that is the most protected right in the bill of rights and in the political history of America. It will be years in litigation and go the the US Supremes.
Posted by Aarondia on September 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM · Report this
It is, where?

Have been going to big summer events - not a sign of any Ref.. 71 campaign - not a single major Seattle event so far, no fund raising events except a cookie project not started by any campaign. Thank god for an activist baker who plans to raise $6,00.00 from the sweat on his hard working activst gay ass ....

The campaign has been on at your keyboard, dear Lurleen. And now, it is time to bring it to planet earth and out of the ether.

The magic word is activate. Leave you keyboard for many hours and do the work to win an election. And, dear, Lurleen, it isn't all to be done by on line chatter.

The Judge entered an injunction - the first in this case, thus prelim.

Next depends on the parties, an appeal of his rule, or full hearings, it will take years. POINT this campaign will be long over. Since this is a Federal filing, all this is in Federal court - and this issue in this case is constitutional, does the state law restrict basic political free speech granted by the federal constitution - interesting stuff to many, boring to most.

Keep focused on the campaign, this is a diversion, and a right wing tactic to keep us off balance and thinking off target.

Posted by Aarondia on September 10, 2009 at 8:55 PM · Report this
what a stupid decision. it also seems that the secretary of state office layed down and got rolled over; why would we expect a republican secretary of state to win a case like this anyway? The groups that want disclosure should have gottn off the side lines intervened in court and fought for our rights of disclosure.

The judge is wrong in saying the signatures had to be shown to have been obtained in a public forum in order to be public. Whether signed secretively or in the town square, everyone signing knows their signatures (a) are examained by officials and counted in a nonprivate process, and (b) are disclosable under washington public disclosure laws. So there is no privacy protection or anonymity in the first place. And (c) the notion your signed name can be anonymous is just stupid and ridiculous.
More fundamentally, there's no discussion in these excerpts of any harm or threat found by the judge. MEaning, any threat of physical harm other than the mere disclosure of the names.

Yes, this should be appealed.

Yes it sounds like this is a temporary order that is until a trial in about 12 months on a permanent order barring disclosure.

The gay rights groups the group for open government the Stranger the individuals who want the signatures should all move to intervene in this case and do the god damned legal work needed because it's crazy to think the republican secretary of state is fighting full on for disclosure here. I mean, didn't he tell the court evey page of signatures is disclosable under the washington public disclosure act, so there's no "anonymity" interest in the first place? How do you know he isn't giving it his best 10% effort?????????
Posted by Don't count on the GOP secretary of state on September 10, 2009 at 8:44 PM · Report this
Cracker Jack 41
Wow... So when it's the gays none of the laws of the land need to be followed? Stay classy, USA!
Posted by Cracker Jack on September 10, 2009 at 8:40 PM · Report this
Lurleen 40
Oh my Aarondia, you really are a card.

Yes, of course the campaign is on. The campaign has been on since SB 5688 was introduced this past winter. But I still want to know what "preliminary injunction means".
Posted by Lurleen on September 10, 2009 at 8:09 PM · Report this
#@ - Lurleen, you have bought a bunch of silly hype. I am guessing you do not live in Washington and really don't understand the Western States and the petition thing.

There are often many floating, 6-9, on all manner of issue. Most fail in the signature drive. We who vote and circulate in public get hit on many times.

You are the only person I have ever read who wonders about fraud of the sort - did someone sign my name? It is such a minor point that no court would take it seriously. Bad tactic to try to argue such trivia.

Get into the real world.

The pushy queens above are right, get on the campaign bus - we need to win an election here.

School is out for ten weeks, spend your time raising money, registering voters, talking to supporters, visibility on a street corner. All, and more.

(yes, the Sec. of State will appeal. Defense of a state law is an imperative. Appeal will be to a panel of the 9th circuit ... when, who cares, the campaign is on)
Posted by Aarondia on September 10, 2009 at 7:54 PM · Report this
kim in portland 38

Posted by kim in portland on September 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM · Report this
Affirms the rights of same-sex couples AND SENIORS who have entered into a domestic partnership. Let's remember this affects more than simply da gays.
Posted by kk on September 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM · Report this
The importance of electing a Democratic Secretary of State just sky rocketed.
Posted by Timothy on September 10, 2009 at 7:29 PM · Report this
@33...there's a distinct difference between revealing the content of an actual vote and the content of signature petitions, gathered in secret and without proper oversight (reference previous rulings allowing petitions that didn't follow the law to be included in the count) and without proper oversight, to place an issue on the ballot.

The real comparison here is my ability, for example, to check to see that my vote was counted. That's currently allowed. If you want to look me up...feel free.
Posted by Timothy on September 10, 2009 at 7:21 PM · Report this
Lurleen 34
i mean "preliminary injunction".
Posted by Lurleen on September 10, 2009 at 7:21 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 33
I want to know the name of everyone who voted for Obama so I can laugh in their faces and say "hahahah".
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on September 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM · Report this
Lurleen 32
what does "preliminary restraining order" mean? is this permanent unless appealed, or does it have a built-in expiration date.

i am shocked that the judge couldn't find an real public interest in people being able to check to see if their name was fraudulently signed.
Posted by Lurleen on September 10, 2009 at 7:08 PM · Report this
@30...I have been following, thank you. And, I still think those issues should be appealed. Listen, I get your zeal to keep us focused here, but there are serious questions at hand.
Posted by Timothy on September 10, 2009 at 7:04 PM · Report this
#26 - you have not been following - we lost that chance in two court hearings at the state level


Our rights are on the ballot - get focusd - join the battle.

Posted by Mike from 19th Ave. on September 10, 2009 at 6:58 PM · Report this
This also places new light on the "invalid" signatures, by State Law, that have been allowed to slide through just because.
Posted by Timothy on September 10, 2009 at 6:54 PM · Report this

protected political speech a a vast array of actions - not just speaking in a voice mode - as well it should be.
Posted by Aarondiaa on September 10, 2009 at 6:53 PM · Report this
I also agree, after reading the Courts argument, that our legal team didn't fare well here.
Posted by Timothy on September 10, 2009 at 6:53 PM · Report this
@23, I agree. And I think an injunction should be placed on the Referendum itself, pending outcome of this case.

If this holds, my entire view of the Initiative/Referendum process will be changed.
Posted by Timothy on September 10, 2009 at 6:52 PM · Report this
This is a diversion - smart diversion.

Means NOTHING vis a vis the ballot game in November we must win.

We have been sidetracked by a smart legal team on the right.

Our own legal team seems C grade by comparison.

Be that as it may - the real fight is the November vote.

Keep on message, keep the prize in mind and get into the CAMPAIGN. This is about VOTING no court room game playing. VOTERS are our friendes - not judges. Remember how the State Supremes shit on us.

VOTERS and VOTING - remember.

Posted by George in Tacoma on September 10, 2009 at 6:51 PM · Report this
This sucks hard.

How is signing a petition "speech"? It's a procedural component of our democracy.

Also, what is the verification against signing for someone other than yourself?
Posted by daniel123sdfkajsd on September 10, 2009 at 6:51 PM · Report this
This needs to go to the US Supreme Court. Far too important issues are at stake to let a low-level federal judge make law.
Posted by Tom on September 10, 2009 at 6:39 PM · Report this
Chef Thunder 22
This is just another reason we all need to do everything we can to make sure that every person we know sends in their ballot and votes APPROVE 71.

Remember it is not about how many people support us it is about how many people actually vote.

Make sure everyone you know is registered to vote… you have until October 3rd.

When you get your ballot send it back in ASAP then start calling your friends and bugging them until they also have sent in their ballots.

Donate your time and money, . Community organizing meetings are happening all across the state.

Get motivated, answer their anger with love. Together we will win this fight but everyone needs to do their part.
Posted by Chef Thunder on September 10, 2009 at 6:35 PM · Report this
very bad homo 21
This entire saga is just ridiculous.
Posted by very bad homo on September 10, 2009 at 6:33 PM · Report this
infodriveway 20
My freaking blood is boiling!
Posted by infodriveway on September 10, 2009 at 6:25 PM · Report this
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

-attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller

For those who believe this decision merits "praise," I sincerely hope someone is around to speak up for your human rights and dignities when your time arrives. People are people, gay or straight, black or white, Jew or Catholic. Even if I might not agree with someone's lifestyle, I would never disagree with or deny their right to be treated as a worthwhile human being. Praise that.
Posted by hatredisaselfdestructingevil on September 10, 2009 at 6:21 PM · Report this
bugwitch 18
And they talk about "special" rights for the LGBT community. Imagine if this was the other way around & the LGBT's wanted to have their names blocked (and it's not like there is no history of violence against us), there would be total outrage!
Posted by bugwitch on September 10, 2009 at 6:21 PM · Report this
oh, the Righteous Indignation is rich...
Posted by We Love It! on September 10, 2009 at 6:19 PM · Report this
I think it's really interesting that this case was brought in federal court, rather than state court. Probably because the plaintiffs knew they'd lose in state court.

Full opinion available here:…
Posted by Gidge on September 10, 2009 at 6:14 PM · Report this
I seem to recall another point in history when people rallied together to play politics in secret and anonymously. I believe they wore white masks.

Everyone should print out these signs and start posting them. Approve R71:
Posted by oly on September 10, 2009 at 6:07 PM · Report this
it may be time for you girls to lay back and enjoy it...
Posted by Uuuuughhh! on September 10, 2009 at 5:58 PM · Report this
Simply Me 13
@11 I hope the Secretary of State appeals this decision -- we certainly should have access to these documents particularly since the judge in Thurston county admitted that PMW broke the law. There is a public interest. Thank you G.W. Bush for this judge!
Posted by Simply Me on September 10, 2009 at 5:54 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 12
Like cockroaches hiding in the dark, filthy bigots such as Loveschild and those that put forth and signed R-71 don't want you to see their ugliness. The spirit of Bull Connor lives on in these foul insects.
Posted by Mark in Colorado on September 10, 2009 at 5:52 PM · Report this
@10...then that Judge should suspend the entire Referendum until a later date. We can't change the rules mid-course, and waiting until it's too late to change the election will do material harm.
Posted by Timothy on September 10, 2009 at 5:45 PM · Report this
Simply Me 10
This is a TEMPORARY injunction. The judge just wants a full hearing from what it sounds like.

Posted by Simply Me on September 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM · Report this
This whole goddamn thing sets a precedent that is just plain sickening.

A nameless, faceless fucking CABAL has no fucking place in legislation. This better not be the end of this.
Posted by Ackham on September 10, 2009 at 5:28 PM · Report this
Didn't slap MY face, honey-
Praises and HALLELUJAH !!!
Posted by AMERICA on September 10, 2009 at 5:26 PM · Report this
I want to see it because I want to make sure my name is NOT on it. If someone is willing to lie to get signatures, it's not so much a stretch that they'll fake a signature.
Posted by Hannah in Portland on September 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM · Report this
When will teh gays learn-
Don't Fuck With Us!
Posted by Craven Bigot on September 10, 2009 at 5:24 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 5
Praise an activist judge that slaps the face of America? Hmmm what ever.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on September 10, 2009 at 5:18 PM · Report this
I've run 2 statewide initiatives and a City referendum, and we always told signers that they were signing public documents. It was part of the verification process that these documents are available to be seen. If that process isn't public and transparent, then it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Referendum itself.

This Referendum should be tossed.
Posted by Timothy on September 10, 2009 at 5:15 PM · Report this
Loveschild 3
Posted by Loveschild on September 10, 2009 at 5:14 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 2
An activist judge stands in the way of Democracy and transparency. This is un-American in the extreme. He's making law by doing this as the law clearly states these petitions are public record.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on September 10, 2009 at 5:11 PM · Report this
This is outrageous. I think a suit should be filed immediately then to halt the progression of this Referendum to the November ballot.
Posted by Timothy on September 10, 2009 at 5:10 PM · Report this

Add a comment


Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy