Monday, October 19, 2009
Homo / News Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Blocks Release of R-71 Signers
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Today in special rights for bigots...
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has temporarily blocked Washington state officials from releasing the names of people who signed a ballot measure on gay rights.Kennedy's ruling Monday temporarily blocks a federal appeals court ruling last week that ordered the release of the names. Kennedy said his order would remain in effect while he considers a request by a pro-marriage group that asked him to reverse the appeals court ruling.
None of this would have happened if the release-the-names gang hadn't been so stupid as to announce their intentions in advance. If they had waited until the petitions were verified and asked then, the documents probably would've been released to them. Still, it's kind of amusing to watch this all unfold.
Share via
1
More here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/plea-for-pe…
After this got posted in the other thread:
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
And the fact that for nearly ***FORTY YEARS*** WA has never kept this information secret, the anti R-71 gangs are simply trying to run down all their options. There's no legal way this information won't be released based on precedent, I'm betting.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/plea-for-pe…
After this got posted in the other thread:
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
And the fact that for nearly ***FORTY YEARS*** WA has never kept this information secret, the anti R-71 gangs are simply trying to run down all their options. There's no legal way this information won't be released based on precedent, I'm betting.
3
Oops...read too fast. Disregard. I thought they meant the petition-signers were the pro-marriage group. Me, dumbass. Thank you.
5
So once the names are released, and the signers start getting phone calls, letters and knocks at the door, what good is supposed to come of that? I get the part about the principle of open public documents and so on, but I'm trying to envision some sort of positive outcome from the confrontations that will ensue and I'm not seeing it.
I mean, Dan Savage calls gays who cooperate with Barack Obama Nazi freaking collaborators so I shutter to think what Savage fans are going to say when they get an R-71 petition signer in their sights.
I mean, Dan Savage calls gays who cooperate with Barack Obama Nazi freaking collaborators so I shutter to think what Savage fans are going to say when they get an R-71 petition signer in their sights.
6
So it would've been okay so long as it was kept in the hush. I always thought that was how interest groups operated but it's nice to get the confirmation directly from the horse's mouth.
Justice Kennedy needs to consider what has been expressed by the "release-the-names gang" like Savage has aptly name them (and in which he belongs) and what are the very real consequences of the confrontations, harassment and advertisement of personal information on billboards that will ensue if they're handed that information.
Justice Kennedy needs to consider what has been expressed by the "release-the-names gang" like Savage has aptly name them (and in which he belongs) and what are the very real consequences of the confrontations, harassment and advertisement of personal information on billboards that will ensue if they're handed that information.
7
@6 You guys are incredible. Forty years of history and referendums, and YOUR one is entitled to more protections than every one that ever came before?
8
@6: The disdain that you level against the courts is hilarious thanks to your comments here. Here's a selection of Loveschild Classics (tm) pulled from google:
Nice to know that five years after legalizing (thru the courts) gay marriage, this is the sort of thing that appears in primetime tv, marketed to kids, up north. U.S take note.......
Unless what they're really after is activism by wanting to open up the doors thru litigation (as has always been done by the activists)
i know that's the type of state you like (the one arbitrarily ruled by courts)
cause I know that future B.S arguments brought forth to courts including to the Supreme Court will be tossed away.
Next stop, forcing gay marriage on people through either
1 lobbying corrupt politicians
2 rogue supreme court judges
9
@7 I've got a box of extra Kleenex's if you need them.
I'll have to go back to the other thread to check and see which pundit made the bold statement about SCOTUS not taking up this argument....
I wonder who that was....
hmmm
I'll have to go back to the other thread to check and see which pundit made the bold statement about SCOTUS not taking up this argument....
I wonder who that was....
hmmm
10
@9 Here it is again for you:
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
You still unwilling to even address the question of why R-71 is legally different from every other referendum of the past 37 years?
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
You still unwilling to even address the question of why R-71 is legally different from every other referendum of the past 37 years?
11
@9 Specifically, just since 2006 WA has given out this info on the signing sheets for all these referendums:
Oct 2006 Kris Hanselman, I-917 and I-920
Jan 2007 Roy Ruffino, I-917 and I-920
Oct 2007 WA Conservation Voters, I-937
July 2008 Narda Pierce, I-1029
Mar 2009 WA Realtors, I-933
July 2009 NEA Charles Hasse, I-1033
Why was it OK for them to give out the info on 917, 920, 933, 937, 1029, and 1033... but legally, not 71?
Oct 2006 Kris Hanselman, I-917 and I-920
Jan 2007 Roy Ruffino, I-917 and I-920
Oct 2007 WA Conservation Voters, I-937
July 2008 Narda Pierce, I-1029
Mar 2009 WA Realtors, I-933
July 2009 NEA Charles Hasse, I-1033
Why was it OK for them to give out the info on 917, 920, 933, 937, 1029, and 1033... but legally, not 71?
13
This is not about bigots and pro-gay folks. This is about a fundamental right to privacy. People who signed those petitions had no expectation that their names would be released for the public. Say what you want about the vote, but there is absolutely zero state interest in releasing these names. Justice Kennedy is right. It's not about special rights for "bigots." It's about the right to privacy that everyone in society enjoys. Dan Savage is once again, completely wrong. You are the definition of ignorance and cognitive dissonance.
14
@13
"People who signed those petitions had no expectation that their names would be released for the public."
History fail: we've been releasing this data for THIRTY SEVEN YEARS.
"People who signed those petitions had no expectation that their names would be released for the public."
History fail: we've been releasing this data for THIRTY SEVEN YEARS.
15
@14 Legal Fail! The issue before the Supreme Court is squarely addressing the validity of Washington State's Public Record's Act, and whether it is unconstitutional. Go do your homework before trying to play with the big boys, ya fat cunt.
16
@ 15 - Your vote is private, as it should be. Signing a petition warrants no such privacy. Asshat.
17
@15 If they were arguing the constitutionality of the Public Records Act, that would be one thing, but did you read the articles?
"In appealing to Kennedy to intervene, Protect Marriage Washington argued that state officials had suddenly changed a long-standing practice of keeping confidential the identities of those who signed referendum petitions."
What exactly suddenly changed?
WA state has been disclosing this information for years and years:
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
This sort of info has been disclosed, under the law 8 times in the past 3 years. What suddenly changed?
"In appealing to Kennedy to intervene, Protect Marriage Washington argued that state officials had suddenly changed a long-standing practice of keeping confidential the identities of those who signed referendum petitions."
What exactly suddenly changed?
WA state has been disclosing this information for years and years:
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
This sort of info has been disclosed, under the law 8 times in the past 3 years. What suddenly changed?
18
@17 - my guess is they realized they'd lose a lot of their customers if people found out they were bigots.
19
@18 Not our problem, nor the law's problem. Neither is it our concern, nor the law's concern.
That sort of thing is utterly irrelevant in any conceivable scenario.
That sort of thing is utterly irrelevant in any conceivable scenario.
20
Response to Joe Szilagyi who wrote: we've been releasing this data for THIRTY SEVEN YEARS.
That's simply not true. For 95 years, all Secretaries of State, other than this one, did not violate citizens' privacy ever.
Only Sam Reed from 2006-2009 did they release signers' names, signatures, and home addresses.
All others said no -- all other SOS's protected citizens' privacy.
From 1912-2006, no names, signatures or home addresses on petitions were ever given out.
That's simply not true. For 95 years, all Secretaries of State, other than this one, did not violate citizens' privacy ever.
Only Sam Reed from 2006-2009 did they release signers' names, signatures, and home addresses.
All others said no -- all other SOS's protected citizens' privacy.
From 1912-2006, no names, signatures or home addresses on petitions were ever given out.
22
@Tim
Are you guys fighting to get this action under our Public Records Act overturned by the Supreme Court? Because the statements here in the news articles have a misleading tone, in that context:
"In appealing to Kennedy to intervene, Protect Marriage Washington argued that state officials had suddenly changed a long-standing practice of keeping confidential the identities of those who signed referendum petitions."
From the Seattle Times. Did you see this?
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
This indicates that legally anyone could have received this information prior to 2006 but has the sound that "few" did before the information became digitally available in 2007, which made doing this easier. This has the sound and thunder of, "This is now disliked, since anyone can access this information for the cost of a blank DVD and a fee," rather than a prohibitive amount of money and time to convert microfilm into a usable format.
Another win for the digital revolution, if so. You guys do realize that there's an entire subculture out there, by the way, that will now take on this fight for no reason whatsoever to do with taxation politics or gay marriage politics, right? By pushing this to the extreme visibility of the Supreme Court, you've now begun to pull in ALL the open-information, open-source, and electronic freedom people. Everyone from the Electronic Freedom Foundation to the various ends of the technology community to 4Chan. Regardless of how this goes in court, I give it twelve months before these records show up on Wikileaks, thanks to the Streisand Effect you and Protect Marriage Washington have set off like a stampede here.
More...
Are you guys fighting to get this action under our Public Records Act overturned by the Supreme Court? Because the statements here in the news articles have a misleading tone, in that context:
"In appealing to Kennedy to intervene, Protect Marriage Washington argued that state officials had suddenly changed a long-standing practice of keeping confidential the identities of those who signed referendum petitions."
From the Seattle Times. Did you see this?
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
This indicates that legally anyone could have received this information prior to 2006 but has the sound that "few" did before the information became digitally available in 2007, which made doing this easier. This has the sound and thunder of, "This is now disliked, since anyone can access this information for the cost of a blank DVD and a fee," rather than a prohibitive amount of money and time to convert microfilm into a usable format.
Another win for the digital revolution, if so. You guys do realize that there's an entire subculture out there, by the way, that will now take on this fight for no reason whatsoever to do with taxation politics or gay marriage politics, right? By pushing this to the extreme visibility of the Supreme Court, you've now begun to pull in ALL the open-information, open-source, and electronic freedom people. Everyone from the Electronic Freedom Foundation to the various ends of the technology community to 4Chan. Regardless of how this goes in court, I give it twelve months before these records show up on Wikileaks, thanks to the Streisand Effect you and Protect Marriage Washington have set off like a stampede here.
24
Yeah, right, like we'd EVER believe Tim Eyman.
Especially in regards to something being Constitutional.
Seriously, isn't there a Three Strikes and you're out law from filing unconstitutional initiatives and referenda? Cause he'd be the poster boy.
Especially in regards to something being Constitutional.
Seriously, isn't there a Three Strikes and you're out law from filing unconstitutional initiatives and referenda? Cause he'd be the poster boy.
25
I would say to those who claim that releasing these names is harassment, to those who feel that 'we gay folk' are ruthless and abusive, to those who feel so alienated and targeted - I would say that you should come to expect no less from the society that you are attempting to fill with those very same actions. To create a society that takes away rights, fuels hate towards innocent people and strips them of their basic dignities is to create a society that will, before too long, victimize the very people who created it. One cannot expect to be immune from animosity they have, themselves, created.
26
@20: No, Tim, it's the cost. Microfiche reproduction currently costs anywhere from $5-10 per microfiche slide, each holding about 130 pages. Most initiatives and referenda ran to at least 2-4 pages, most others upwards of 10, and in general, the SoS puts only one petition form per microfiche slide to prevent confusion.
Then you have to consider what the requester has to do afterward, in terms of distributing or posting this information. Do they hire someone to hand-type it? Do they get it digitized? Do they use OCR to make an ascii file? These things all cost money.
Then you have to consider what the requester has to do afterward, in terms of distributing or posting this information. Do they hire someone to hand-type it? Do they get it digitized? Do they use OCR to make an ascii file? These things all cost money.
29
Has this information been passed on to our friends at slashdot yet? Because it really should. Thanks for lighting a fire under our asses Tim...you have no idea what you just did.
30
@29
If its not out there, it will be soon. Already submitted to /. on my part. Once it's there, Digg, oh, Twitter...
Yeah, not taking in a manly 1950s fashion may have been a miscalculation on the part of the Right.
If its not out there, it will be soon. Already submitted to /. on my part. Once it's there, Digg, oh, Twitter...
Yeah, not taking in a manly 1950s fashion may have been a miscalculation on the part of the Right.
31
@25
Exactly what I'm talking about. I think 98% or 99% of of R-71 supporters would not lose their shit over this, but 1% or 2% have the self-righteous attitude that you express so well, and you think you've go a license to harass and frighten people. Your goal is to make people afraid to sign next time a petition like this comes around in Washington or another state.
Obviously your brain doesn't compute that as a problem, but normal people don't want anyone to be afraid to sign a petition they agree with. That's not how it is supposed to work, no matter how big a victim you make yourself out to be.
I wonder who will take responsibility when the names come out and the shit hits the fan? Nobody, I guess. Isolated lunatics will be held accountable but not the ones who set it in motion.
Exactly what I'm talking about. I think 98% or 99% of of R-71 supporters would not lose their shit over this, but 1% or 2% have the self-righteous attitude that you express so well, and you think you've go a license to harass and frighten people. Your goal is to make people afraid to sign next time a petition like this comes around in Washington or another state.
Obviously your brain doesn't compute that as a problem, but normal people don't want anyone to be afraid to sign a petition they agree with. That's not how it is supposed to work, no matter how big a victim you make yourself out to be.
I wonder who will take responsibility when the names come out and the shit hits the fan? Nobody, I guess. Isolated lunatics will be held accountable but not the ones who set it in motion.
32
Sorry, elenchos, but if you're going to sign a petition, that means OWNING UP to signing. If you're willing to disenfranchise people and deprive them of civil rights, then you should be "exposed." Why should you have a closet to hide in? Sure, there probably will be consequences. I hope they're civil consequences, such as boycotting businesses. But they may not be. If you vote for hate, expect to be hated for it.
33
@31. Perhaps I did not express my point well. I did not mean to say I have a license to harass people. I simply meant to say that when voters want to take rights from people, they might catch shit for it. I think it's perfectly fair to say that releasing these names isn't really a form of harassment. I apologize if I sounded angry - I simply felt that the double standard taken on by the signers of this petition was a little bit hypocritical and got me slightly ticked off.
That being said, I really think that you are being somewhat unfair with some of your comments. I don't consider myself a lunatic, and I think part of this was a misunderstanding and perhaps some poor choices of words on my part.
That being said, I really think that you are being somewhat unfair with some of your comments. I don't consider myself a lunatic, and I think part of this was a misunderstanding and perhaps some poor choices of words on my part.
34
@ Dan Savage...
"Stupid?" by announcing before hand of our intentions? Hardly, Mr. Savage, it shows KnowThyNeighbor's and WhoSigned's integrity. KTN has posted close to 1 million names in 3 states. Only in Washington where the "gay leadership," though fully warned and prepped for how to handle the messaging, fed our tactic to the wolves, did it cause this much of a problem. In Florida, arguably the anti-gay tele-evangelist capital, and demographic of easily perceived to be "threatened" demographic, KTN had no such problems because the Equality Group there (aka Nadine Smith) distanced itself and yet looked to our strategy in her few press ops as positive. And Florida was announced before the campaign. Massachusetts was also announced before the campaign and we used the known fraud and bait and switch element in messaging. Your '"leader" at ERW, a known opponent of name posting" who hailed from Massachusetts blew it. And the campaign continues to blow it as all of this including the recent Supreme Court reaction is an incredible press opportunity to react and push what is happening to LGBT into the forefront.
Stupid because we announced ourselves in advance? I am not a name collector. I want the conversation to happen. I want it to happen at the earliest opportunity in a campaign in which our rights are being taken away. This concept of Ref 71 being a "virtual decline to sign campaign" was asinine. The lead strategists responsible for same sex marriage here in Massachusetts who worked with your "leader" during our campaign in 2005 tell me on a daily basis how f'ed up Washington's campaign is.
And I can tell you this. If we had held off and not announced our intentions until after the names were verified, I am 99% sure that the anti-gays would have tried to stop the name posting while we were doing our data-entry work. Sure, if we just provided the searchable database and published it, you can argue that it would have been picked up and saved somewhere, but the Bopps of their movement would have placed a TRO or lawsuit against us and probably not the Sec of State. One way or the other, they would have gotten to close to the point we are now. And quite frankly, it is good that we are getting the Constitutionality squared away as soon as possible.
More...
"Stupid?" by announcing before hand of our intentions? Hardly, Mr. Savage, it shows KnowThyNeighbor's and WhoSigned's integrity. KTN has posted close to 1 million names in 3 states. Only in Washington where the "gay leadership," though fully warned and prepped for how to handle the messaging, fed our tactic to the wolves, did it cause this much of a problem. In Florida, arguably the anti-gay tele-evangelist capital, and demographic of easily perceived to be "threatened" demographic, KTN had no such problems because the Equality Group there (aka Nadine Smith) distanced itself and yet looked to our strategy in her few press ops as positive. And Florida was announced before the campaign. Massachusetts was also announced before the campaign and we used the known fraud and bait and switch element in messaging. Your '"leader" at ERW, a known opponent of name posting" who hailed from Massachusetts blew it. And the campaign continues to blow it as all of this including the recent Supreme Court reaction is an incredible press opportunity to react and push what is happening to LGBT into the forefront.
Stupid because we announced ourselves in advance? I am not a name collector. I want the conversation to happen. I want it to happen at the earliest opportunity in a campaign in which our rights are being taken away. This concept of Ref 71 being a "virtual decline to sign campaign" was asinine. The lead strategists responsible for same sex marriage here in Massachusetts who worked with your "leader" during our campaign in 2005 tell me on a daily basis how f'ed up Washington's campaign is.
And I can tell you this. If we had held off and not announced our intentions until after the names were verified, I am 99% sure that the anti-gays would have tried to stop the name posting while we were doing our data-entry work. Sure, if we just provided the searchable database and published it, you can argue that it would have been picked up and saved somewhere, but the Bopps of their movement would have placed a TRO or lawsuit against us and probably not the Sec of State. One way or the other, they would have gotten to close to the point we are now. And quite frankly, it is good that we are getting the Constitutionality squared away as soon as possible.
35
@ 25
We are dealing with a petition and a process that will take away people's rights. Not in the abstract as this presents itself but real people, real couples, real families will be hurt. People can claim all excuses and even feel its their right to do this, taking a religious angle or process angle or personal angle, but whatever the excuse, rights will be denied and the discussion, the debate as well as the vote (if its negative) dehumanizes LGBT children and adults.
You and others use words like harass, intimidate, cause fear, when I can tell you from my experience of having done this in 3 other states that this is about social and moral responsibility and examining how we (or the majority) treat our fellow human beings, our fellow Americans. When we are young and our parents and our teachers and our clergy tell us things like we shouldn't lie, or steal or bully or talk badly about others, there are social reasons why. We may be held out or called out as ones who have done this. We may be brought into a public forum among our peers even in just simple ways. We are asked to examine ourselves and at times we are told its wrong, other times we are asked to think about what we have done and are asked the think if that is how we would like to be treated. Some may call this the Golden Rule, I call it social responsibility. It brings the human element into our actions. But at no time would I ever say that these sort of enlightening experiences or teachable moments in one's life are "intimidation, threats or fear."
That is what my intent with KnowThyNeighbor is...
We are dealing with a petition and a process that will take away people's rights. Not in the abstract as this presents itself but real people, real couples, real families will be hurt. People can claim all excuses and even feel its their right to do this, taking a religious angle or process angle or personal angle, but whatever the excuse, rights will be denied and the discussion, the debate as well as the vote (if its negative) dehumanizes LGBT children and adults.
You and others use words like harass, intimidate, cause fear, when I can tell you from my experience of having done this in 3 other states that this is about social and moral responsibility and examining how we (or the majority) treat our fellow human beings, our fellow Americans. When we are young and our parents and our teachers and our clergy tell us things like we shouldn't lie, or steal or bully or talk badly about others, there are social reasons why. We may be held out or called out as ones who have done this. We may be brought into a public forum among our peers even in just simple ways. We are asked to examine ourselves and at times we are told its wrong, other times we are asked to think about what we have done and are asked the think if that is how we would like to be treated. Some may call this the Golden Rule, I call it social responsibility. It brings the human element into our actions. But at no time would I ever say that these sort of enlightening experiences or teachable moments in one's life are "intimidation, threats or fear."
That is what my intent with KnowThyNeighbor is...
36
@35
I really think people are misinterpreting my views here. I am a gay man, dude - I support every right available. For some reason people think my message was from the opposite side.
I really think people are misinterpreting my views here. I am a gay man, dude - I support every right available. For some reason people think my message was from the opposite side.
37
@34
What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Implying?
This is Seattle!!
We have America's Premier Gay SpokesModel leading us!!
We don't give a flying fuck how you did it in Messachusetts or Flwhoreida.
This is fucking Seattle!
(did I mention that?)
What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Implying?
This is Seattle!!
We have America's Premier Gay SpokesModel leading us!!
We don't give a flying fuck how you did it in Messachusetts or Flwhoreida.
This is fucking Seattle!
(did I mention that?)
38
@31 FTW! Thanks Elenchos! Ohhh wait... that was my EXACT POINT I articulated earlier!
Please SLOG pundits, fire off some hatred at Elenchos!
Ohhh and @33 you made Elenchos's argument again perfectly a second time. You are exactly who he (and I ) are talking about!
100% PURE HYPOCRISY
Reailty Check fuckers.
Please SLOG pundits, fire off some hatred at Elenchos!
Ohhh and @33 you made Elenchos's argument again perfectly a second time. You are exactly who he (and I ) are talking about!
100% PURE HYPOCRISY
Reailty Check fuckers.
39
From: Tim Eyman
95 years, all Secretaries of State, other than this one, maintained the personal privacy of the signers' personal identifiers.
After the Public Records Act I-276 in 1972, all Secretaries of State, other than this one, looked at that law and recognized that it REQUIRED personal information be removed.
Only in 2006 did Sam Reed arbitrarily and capriciously reverse that 95 year policy and practice. Such a radical change was done without a new rule, which requires public note, public hearings, public input. None of that occurred. He changed the policy AND REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT THIS IS THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE.
No one questioned that claim until now.
Now we've learned that in 1973 under then Secretary of State Lud Kramer (guess who was Asst Sec of State to Lud Kramer? Sam Reed) there was a lawsuit over this specific issue. Following the passage of the Public Records Act I-276 in 1972, the Secretary of State's office in 1973 refused to turn over the names, signatures, and home addresses of the 699,000 citizens who signed Initiative 282, sponsored by Lynnwood furniture salesman Bruce Helm, which capped legislators' salaries. The initiative was prompted by the Legislature's midnight vote on the last day of the legislative session for a massive pay raise for themselves in the midst of national wage-and-price controls.
A lawsuit was filed in Thurston County Superior Court (Chaney v. Kramer, Cause No. 48733) where the plaintiff sought to obtain the names, signatures, and home addresses of the citizens who signed petitions for I-282. The Secretary of State defended its position citing language in the Public Records Act that says "an agency shall delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes any public record" (Section 26 of Chapter 1, Laws of 1973 (Initiative Measure No. 276)" and further argued that to release this personal information would chill citizens' willingness to participate in the political process. Judge Hewitt A. Henry agreed with the Secretary of State. Despite the resources, the head of the Democrat party, Neale Chaney, chose not to appeal. The personal information on that heroic 699,000 citizens who signed those politician-salary-capping petitions were protected from inevitable political retaliation.
In a public release in 1973, Lud Kramer explained: "It has been my policy not to release the names of citizens signing initiative and referendum petitions. As far as I'm concerned petitions ... are being held in trust by this office. Furthermore, the release of these signatures have no legal value, but could have deep political ramifications to those signing. I will not violate public trust."
The Secretary of State's practice of not turning over personal information on petitions has been maintained for 95 years, including during the tenure of Lud Kramer, Bruce Chapman, the 20 years of Ralph Munro, and the first six years of Sam Reed.
The citizens of Washington deserve to have their privacy protected, as they have for 95 years under every other Secretary of State except this one.
More...
95 years, all Secretaries of State, other than this one, maintained the personal privacy of the signers' personal identifiers.
After the Public Records Act I-276 in 1972, all Secretaries of State, other than this one, looked at that law and recognized that it REQUIRED personal information be removed.
Only in 2006 did Sam Reed arbitrarily and capriciously reverse that 95 year policy and practice. Such a radical change was done without a new rule, which requires public note, public hearings, public input. None of that occurred. He changed the policy AND REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT THIS IS THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE.
No one questioned that claim until now.
Now we've learned that in 1973 under then Secretary of State Lud Kramer (guess who was Asst Sec of State to Lud Kramer? Sam Reed) there was a lawsuit over this specific issue. Following the passage of the Public Records Act I-276 in 1972, the Secretary of State's office in 1973 refused to turn over the names, signatures, and home addresses of the 699,000 citizens who signed Initiative 282, sponsored by Lynnwood furniture salesman Bruce Helm, which capped legislators' salaries. The initiative was prompted by the Legislature's midnight vote on the last day of the legislative session for a massive pay raise for themselves in the midst of national wage-and-price controls.
A lawsuit was filed in Thurston County Superior Court (Chaney v. Kramer, Cause No. 48733) where the plaintiff sought to obtain the names, signatures, and home addresses of the citizens who signed petitions for I-282. The Secretary of State defended its position citing language in the Public Records Act that says "an agency shall delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes any public record" (Section 26 of Chapter 1, Laws of 1973 (Initiative Measure No. 276)" and further argued that to release this personal information would chill citizens' willingness to participate in the political process. Judge Hewitt A. Henry agreed with the Secretary of State. Despite the resources, the head of the Democrat party, Neale Chaney, chose not to appeal. The personal information on that heroic 699,000 citizens who signed those politician-salary-capping petitions were protected from inevitable political retaliation.
In a public release in 1973, Lud Kramer explained: "It has been my policy not to release the names of citizens signing initiative and referendum petitions. As far as I'm concerned petitions ... are being held in trust by this office. Furthermore, the release of these signatures have no legal value, but could have deep political ramifications to those signing. I will not violate public trust."
The Secretary of State's practice of not turning over personal information on petitions has been maintained for 95 years, including during the tenure of Lud Kramer, Bruce Chapman, the 20 years of Ralph Munro, and the first six years of Sam Reed.
The citizens of Washington deserve to have their privacy protected, as they have for 95 years under every other Secretary of State except this one.
41
What is so wrong about letting the people decide contentious issues. If a group can’t muster enough support so be it. We run the risk of the tyranny of majority, but is tyranny of the minority enforced and abetted by the courts any better since it leads to rage and voter apathy. By the way I support civil unions for as the only union recognized by the state and think they should be a mandatory requirement to receive domestic partnership benefits and tax deductions.
When do legitimate efforts to convince people on an issue cross the line into efforts to intimidate them? My reaction to an attempt at intimidation would be to vote against such a tainted proposition even if I supported it. Can you say backlash.
If the names are released you know the inevitable confrontations will be portrayed as attempts at intimidation. ACT UPs message got lost in its antics, which got the most media coverage.
When do legitimate efforts to convince people on an issue cross the line into efforts to intimidate them? My reaction to an attempt at intimidation would be to vote against such a tainted proposition even if I supported it. Can you say backlash.
If the names are released you know the inevitable confrontations will be portrayed as attempts at intimidation. ACT UPs message got lost in its antics, which got the most media coverage.
42
If I'm unable to see the names on these petitions, how can I ever know for certain they didn't just use my information to pad their numbers at the 11th hour? How can ANYBODY know their information was ever used in such a manner, if not for complete transparency?
As an example, over a year ago, there were signature gatherers standing outside Fred Meyers. They were gathering signatures for 3 separate initiatives. I signed 2 but not the 3rd, as I didn't believe in it. They now had my signature, name, address, etc on the 2 and if they wanted, could have copied over the information to the other petition, dishonestly.
Yes, I believe MOST signature gatherers are honest, but frankly, NOT this crew of hate. They've been dishonest and misleading from day one. They're just not operating on the level, and I for one, don't trust them.
As an example, over a year ago, there were signature gatherers standing outside Fred Meyers. They were gathering signatures for 3 separate initiatives. I signed 2 but not the 3rd, as I didn't believe in it. They now had my signature, name, address, etc on the 2 and if they wanted, could have copied over the information to the other petition, dishonestly.
Yes, I believe MOST signature gatherers are honest, but frankly, NOT this crew of hate. They've been dishonest and misleading from day one. They're just not operating on the level, and I for one, don't trust them.
43
@13 I’m not from Washington so I don’t know or really care what they were about, but how many of them dealt with contentious social issues? Did the release of the names result in harassment and acts of intimidation against the signers? Is putting such issues to the vote really such a bad thing. Desegregation through court ordered school busing was such a great success that there is less integration in many places than there was before.
44
I guess it's time for an initiative that basically says:
All Initiatives and Referendums in Washington State are public activities for registered voters, and for purposes of open government, transparency, and so that voters can check all such activities to ensure they are not falsely misrepresented, shall be public record. The State of Washington shall publish the full names, date of voter registration, town or municipality of the registered voter in Washington State, and the date and location in which they signed the initiative or referendum petition, in a public manner on the Internet for all Washington State residents to review. The data must be accessible to the public onl the Internet with no registration required, in both a searchable ("free, online") web-based format in addition to normal "offline" formats. All state generated referendum data will be considered a matter of public record for the good of the community and transparency.
All Initiatives and Referendums in Washington State are public activities for registered voters, and for purposes of open government, transparency, and so that voters can check all such activities to ensure they are not falsely misrepresented, shall be public record. The State of Washington shall publish the full names, date of voter registration, town or municipality of the registered voter in Washington State, and the date and location in which they signed the initiative or referendum petition, in a public manner on the Internet for all Washington State residents to review. The data must be accessible to the public onl the Internet with no registration required, in both a searchable ("free, online") web-based format in addition to normal "offline" formats. All state generated referendum data will be considered a matter of public record for the good of the community and transparency.
45
@44 Our current government was created as a representative based democracy. Is anybody naive enough to believe judges and elected officials really represent the PEOPLE anymore? The referendum process along with the recall elections allows ordinary people to participate directly in government and call elected officials to account for their actions and behavior. In that context, signing a petition imust be considered part of the electoral process and people should be granted to the same right to privacy they have in the election booth. Just because someone signs a petition to have an issue decided by referendum does not necessarily mean they are in favor of the issue. For me it is last best hope of dealing with the increasing level of political corruption. In most places greater effort is expended on verifying the identify of people who sign petitions than verifying the identity of a person who wants to vote. Want to bet which is more prone to fraud.
46
It's funny that even having the name "Tim Eyman" under a post pretty much completely discredits it.
You either figure "just some dick pretending to be him." or "He's a dick."....either way it equals disregard.
That is all an aside...
This issue and all of the ramifications of it-just sort of numbs my mind after a couple minutes. I spent the first couple decades of my life arguing with bigots. There is absolutely no future in it. That's what makes them bigots. They have either chosen to be socially and emotionally retarded, or are actually socially and emotionally retarded.
Same difference.
I wish I knew what the solution is. Being backed into a corner along with my loved ones does not engender passivity, I can tell you that.
Neither does it inspire me to squander my psychic energies in some endless round of legal conflicts involving the names of unenlightened, uneducated, dumbasses who were mostly tricked into signing what they signed. Duped is probably the more appropriate term. Duped by their entire lives-to some degree we should forgive them, because forgiving others for being human is the best thing we can ever, ever do. Please learn that.
I guess what I am saying is that my feeling is-85% of the people who signed the damned thing are way more powerless than you, average SLOG reader. They are just ignorant Grandmas and stuff.
It's that other 15% you have to worry about. (I'm just pulling these percentages out of my ass, but play along-you get the idea.)
I still don't know what to do about those people though.
I think taxing churches would probably take most of the wind out of their sails!
I know-that sounds simplistic....but I am a bit of a reductionist, and I'm tired, and my feet hurt, and I have to do the dinner dishes (like most people) and I just NO LONGER HAVE TIME FOR BULLSHIT.
"Dear bigot,
It's a full moon, and a high tide. Fuck with me."
More...
You either figure "just some dick pretending to be him." or "He's a dick."....either way it equals disregard.
That is all an aside...
This issue and all of the ramifications of it-just sort of numbs my mind after a couple minutes. I spent the first couple decades of my life arguing with bigots. There is absolutely no future in it. That's what makes them bigots. They have either chosen to be socially and emotionally retarded, or are actually socially and emotionally retarded.
Same difference.
I wish I knew what the solution is. Being backed into a corner along with my loved ones does not engender passivity, I can tell you that.
Neither does it inspire me to squander my psychic energies in some endless round of legal conflicts involving the names of unenlightened, uneducated, dumbasses who were mostly tricked into signing what they signed. Duped is probably the more appropriate term. Duped by their entire lives-to some degree we should forgive them, because forgiving others for being human is the best thing we can ever, ever do. Please learn that.
I guess what I am saying is that my feeling is-85% of the people who signed the damned thing are way more powerless than you, average SLOG reader. They are just ignorant Grandmas and stuff.
It's that other 15% you have to worry about. (I'm just pulling these percentages out of my ass, but play along-you get the idea.)
I still don't know what to do about those people though.
I think taxing churches would probably take most of the wind out of their sails!
I know-that sounds simplistic....but I am a bit of a reductionist, and I'm tired, and my feet hurt, and I have to do the dinner dishes (like most people) and I just NO LONGER HAVE TIME FOR BULLSHIT.
"Dear bigot,
It's a full moon, and a high tide. Fuck with me."
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
-
Was This On Slog Yesterday? by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (46) RSS