Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, October 14, 2009
Politics Eyman Petitions Remain Sealed
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Judge Richard Hicks of Thurston County Superior Court has just granted a temporary restraining order blocking the state from releasing initiative petitions under the state’s Public Records Act. His decision came Wednesday in response to a lawsuit brought by initiative activist Tim Eyman.Hicks said he wants to preserve the status quo while awaiting a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering whether to continue blocking release of petitions submitted for Referendum 71, the domestic-partnership law that is on the statewide ballot.
Earlier today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on whether Washington state can release the Referendum 71 petitions. "Deputy Solicitor General Bill Collins just called to say the argument went well and the court understood our argument," says AG's office spokeswoman Janelle Guthrie. "The court did not give an indication when they would rule or how they would rule." A decision could take months.
1
We sent this out today following Judge Hicks' ruling:
RE: Good day for citizens' privacy, more lies from Sam Reed -- Judge orders Reed to protect citizens' privacy
This afternoon, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks ordered Secretary of State Sam Reed to protect the privacy of citizens who sign initiatives and referendum petitions. The judge essentially reinstated the previous 95 year privacy policy.
Speaking for 10 minutes from the bench, Judge Hicks talked about the privacy protections of the U.S. Constitution but added "Our state Constitution affords us more privacy than the federal." He explained the importance of protecting these citizens until the federal case resolves itself. But Judge Hicks went on to say that even if the federal court overturns Judge Settle, no personal information will be released until Judge Hicks makes his own determination.
After hearing the ruling, Sam Reed's lawyer asked: "Does this overlap the federal ruling on R-71?"
Judge Hicks: "Yes, that is my intent."
Following the hearing, Sam Reed's Nick Handy lied to reporters. He said that Ralph Munro changed the Secretary of State's privacy policy in the 1990's. As Shawn Newman explained, Ralph Munro's elections director during the 90's, Don Whiting, included a declaration in the lawsuit that refutes that assertion. This is the latest in a string of lies coming from Sam Reed on this issue. For months, Sam Reed has said his 'anything-goes' policy is the way it's always been. That's a lie -- there was a privacy policy for 95 years. There's a 1938 AG opinion and a 1956 AG opinion, but contrary to Sam Reed, there has not been a subsequent attorney general's opinion on this subject.
From 1912 until 2006, citizens exercising their political free speech rights by affixing their names, signatures, and home addresses on ballot measure petitions in Washington were protected. Every Secretary of State, other than this one, protected citizens' privacy.
In 1973, Secretary of State Lud Kramer was sued by a state senator for refusing to turn over the names, signatures, and home addresses of citizens who signed petitions to cap politicians' pay (Chaney v Kramer). SOS Kramer made clear the office's longstanding practice, supported by a 1938 & 1956 Attorneys General opinion, was to not turn them over -- "It has been my policy not to release the names of citizens signing initiative or referendum petitions. ... the release of these signatures has no legal value, but could have deep political ramifications to those signing. I will not violate public trust.". He went further by stating that the Public Records Act I-276, passed the previous year, required him to redact that personal information (As OSOS official Don Whiting wrote to the state senator: "Section 26 of Chapter 1, Laws of 1973 (Initiative 276) provides that 'to the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, an agency shall delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes any public record.' It is our belief that the release of the names and addresses of persons in Thurston County who have signed Initiative 282 would constitute such an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy").
Two AG opinions, a Thurston judge, a federal judge, every Secretary of State, they all agree -- protect citizens' privacy. But according to Sam Reed, all of them are wrong and only he is right.
Sam Reed said he will not go back to his office's previous privacy policy EVEN IF THE FEDERAL COURTS TELL HIM THAT HE'S VIOLATING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. We asked him if he loses in federal court, will he change his policy -- he said no.
Today's lawsuit asks the state court to try to rein him in.
He's violating the U.S. Constitution (chilling of speech), the Washington state Constitution (government laws, rules, and policies can only facilitate the initiative process, this frustrates it) and various state laws that protect citizens' privacy.
At the bargain price of $1500, Secretary Reed is selling Bryan Wahl, a for-profit consultant and powerful lobbyist, over three million names, signatures, and home addresses of citizens who've signed 11 tax initiatives since 2000. Under Sam Reed's anything-goes policy, commercial use and re-selling of the list, in whole or in part, is not prohibited. Sign a property tax initiative and your name gets sold to real estate agents, sign a no-new-gas-tax initiative, get hit up for a Chevron credit card, sign a lower-car-tab initiative, receive a phone call from your local car dealer. Unless Judge Hicks grants a temporary restraining order, millions of Washingtonian's very personal identifiers will be sold on the open market. These digital copies of our signatures will then be copied and sold and resold over and over again all over the world. Secretary Reed is facilitating commercial exploitation and identity theft.
More...
RE: Good day for citizens' privacy, more lies from Sam Reed -- Judge orders Reed to protect citizens' privacy
This afternoon, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks ordered Secretary of State Sam Reed to protect the privacy of citizens who sign initiatives and referendum petitions. The judge essentially reinstated the previous 95 year privacy policy.
Speaking for 10 minutes from the bench, Judge Hicks talked about the privacy protections of the U.S. Constitution but added "Our state Constitution affords us more privacy than the federal." He explained the importance of protecting these citizens until the federal case resolves itself. But Judge Hicks went on to say that even if the federal court overturns Judge Settle, no personal information will be released until Judge Hicks makes his own determination.
After hearing the ruling, Sam Reed's lawyer asked: "Does this overlap the federal ruling on R-71?"
Judge Hicks: "Yes, that is my intent."
Following the hearing, Sam Reed's Nick Handy lied to reporters. He said that Ralph Munro changed the Secretary of State's privacy policy in the 1990's. As Shawn Newman explained, Ralph Munro's elections director during the 90's, Don Whiting, included a declaration in the lawsuit that refutes that assertion. This is the latest in a string of lies coming from Sam Reed on this issue. For months, Sam Reed has said his 'anything-goes' policy is the way it's always been. That's a lie -- there was a privacy policy for 95 years. There's a 1938 AG opinion and a 1956 AG opinion, but contrary to Sam Reed, there has not been a subsequent attorney general's opinion on this subject.
From 1912 until 2006, citizens exercising their political free speech rights by affixing their names, signatures, and home addresses on ballot measure petitions in Washington were protected. Every Secretary of State, other than this one, protected citizens' privacy.
In 1973, Secretary of State Lud Kramer was sued by a state senator for refusing to turn over the names, signatures, and home addresses of citizens who signed petitions to cap politicians' pay (Chaney v Kramer). SOS Kramer made clear the office's longstanding practice, supported by a 1938 & 1956 Attorneys General opinion, was to not turn them over -- "It has been my policy not to release the names of citizens signing initiative or referendum petitions. ... the release of these signatures has no legal value, but could have deep political ramifications to those signing. I will not violate public trust.". He went further by stating that the Public Records Act I-276, passed the previous year, required him to redact that personal information (As OSOS official Don Whiting wrote to the state senator: "Section 26 of Chapter 1, Laws of 1973 (Initiative 276) provides that 'to the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, an agency shall delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes any public record.' It is our belief that the release of the names and addresses of persons in Thurston County who have signed Initiative 282 would constitute such an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy").
Two AG opinions, a Thurston judge, a federal judge, every Secretary of State, they all agree -- protect citizens' privacy. But according to Sam Reed, all of them are wrong and only he is right.
Sam Reed said he will not go back to his office's previous privacy policy EVEN IF THE FEDERAL COURTS TELL HIM THAT HE'S VIOLATING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. We asked him if he loses in federal court, will he change his policy -- he said no.
Today's lawsuit asks the state court to try to rein him in.
He's violating the U.S. Constitution (chilling of speech), the Washington state Constitution (government laws, rules, and policies can only facilitate the initiative process, this frustrates it) and various state laws that protect citizens' privacy.
At the bargain price of $1500, Secretary Reed is selling Bryan Wahl, a for-profit consultant and powerful lobbyist, over three million names, signatures, and home addresses of citizens who've signed 11 tax initiatives since 2000. Under Sam Reed's anything-goes policy, commercial use and re-selling of the list, in whole or in part, is not prohibited. Sign a property tax initiative and your name gets sold to real estate agents, sign a no-new-gas-tax initiative, get hit up for a Chevron credit card, sign a lower-car-tab initiative, receive a phone call from your local car dealer. Unless Judge Hicks grants a temporary restraining order, millions of Washingtonian's very personal identifiers will be sold on the open market. These digital copies of our signatures will then be copied and sold and resold over and over again all over the world. Secretary Reed is facilitating commercial exploitation and identity theft.
3
Tim is lying again, he's using AGOs cherry-picked from before I-276 to create a fictitious world where people had every right to manipulate the governmental process without transparency.
4
Seriously, Tim? I just don't understand you. It's good that there isn't any government transparency but every last little thing needs to be put to a vote? Those two ideas seem mutually exclusive. By this logic you could put yourself up for King of Washington State via initiative but never actually have to prove you convinced anyone of it on a petition form. You don't give a damn about citizen's privacy, you just want to drag this state into total oblivion.
5
At least Comrade Tim E and his fellow travelers aren't as corrupt as Susan H and Sue Rahr ....
But Tim E really needs to stop lying.
But Tim E really needs to stop lying.
6
If the question on R-71 isn't decided in a timely fashion, then the Governor should declare an emergency measure to postpone the vote on R-71.
7
Oh you lucky Washingtonians. You got your very own Bill Sizemore. Now we won't have to export him up north to wreak havoc on your state. Too bad these losers can't get a real job.
8
You guys don't get it. Tim's right. These petitions should be so private that even the Secretary of State should not be able to look at them, which of course would mean the signatures could never be counted up to see if the initiative qualifies for the ballot. There. Problem solved. It may not make sense but still, PRIVACY!
9
Seems like the court should also grant an injunction preventing R71 from appearing on the ballot until the signature dispute has been settled.
I'm most definitely not a lawyer, but seems like a plausible argument that releasing the signatures could have a significant effect on the outcome of the vote.
What crap, BTW.
I'm most definitely not a lawyer, but seems like a plausible argument that releasing the signatures could have a significant effect on the outcome of the vote.
What crap, BTW.
11
Again, Tim was too busy to be interviewed by the Stranger regarding his latest piece of shit initiative, but he wasn't too busy to post a response to Dominic's blog entry a whopping 14 minutes after it went up. Slime bag.
13
#9 - that was tried two months ago - it failed in the courts - nothing to do with Eyman. After all the blah, blah, the signature drive had the required good ones, and they were checked one by one, with a margin of about 1,500 extra. Signature drive certified, election on. No court would throw that out.
The legal challenge was a waste of time.... to many lawyers out of work. The GLBT side had pro bono legal, thanks.
The Approve Ref: 71 campaign is on - have you donated?
Remember to vote.
The legal challenge was a waste of time.... to many lawyers out of work. The GLBT side had pro bono legal, thanks.
The Approve Ref: 71 campaign is on - have you donated?
Remember to vote.
14
Baconcat wrote: Tim is lying again, he's using AGOs cherry-picked from before I-276 to create a fictitious world where people had every right to manipulate the governmental process without transparency.
response: there are only 2 AGO's in our state history. But one year after I-276, there was a lawsuit on this topic and the judge ruled that the Public Records Act (I-276) PROHIBITED THE RELEASE OF NAMES, SIGNATURES, AND HOME ADDRESSES.
2 AG opinions, 2 Thurston county judges, a federal judge, 95 years of Secretaries of State, all agree that citizens' privacy and the First Amendment is preeminent.
Standing alone is Sam Reed in 2006, six years after being in office, overturning and reversing that 95 year privacy policy. And he did it without public hearings, without public testimony, without notice, without anything other than his own view that everyone has been wrong for 95 years and only he is right.
That should make anyone question this practice.
response: there are only 2 AGO's in our state history. But one year after I-276, there was a lawsuit on this topic and the judge ruled that the Public Records Act (I-276) PROHIBITED THE RELEASE OF NAMES, SIGNATURES, AND HOME ADDRESSES.
2 AG opinions, 2 Thurston county judges, a federal judge, 95 years of Secretaries of State, all agree that citizens' privacy and the First Amendment is preeminent.
Standing alone is Sam Reed in 2006, six years after being in office, overturning and reversing that 95 year privacy policy. And he did it without public hearings, without public testimony, without notice, without anything other than his own view that everyone has been wrong for 95 years and only he is right.
That should make anyone question this practice.
16
So, someone asks you, in public, to sign something, in public and you sign it, in public. Suddenly it needs to be private?
This is not about the right to speech, it is about the right to sneak.
This is not about the right to speech, it is about the right to sneak.
17
@14 - why do you hate our State Constitution, Tim E?
Yeah, move to Cali. You obviously don't like it here.
Yeah, move to Cali. You obviously don't like it here.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (17) RSS