Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, December 29, 2009
Homo Supreme Court Will Decide Whether to Hear R-71 Petition Signature Case on Jan. 15
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM
As you may recall, Protect Marriage Washington is challenging state election rules that require the release of names and addresses of people who sign petitions, including for Referendum 71. The referendum, which qualified for the ballot in summer, put the state's third domestic-partnership law for gay couples and straight seniors up for a public vote. (Voters upheld the law.) State rules mandate that the names of all petition signers be released upon request, argued Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, and a group called WhoSigned.org had requested the names and addresses of R-71 signers to post online. Those petition signers were engaging in the lawmaking process and should be subject to the same scrutiny as any lawmaking process. As an example of the need for transparency, there were many questions about whether signature gatherers were telling the truth and if the election workers wrongly validated some signatures. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the signatures should remain public. But Protect Marriage Washington, a group of Christian extremists who put the measure on the ballot, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, keeping the release of the names in limbo. The bigots argued that they would in be danger of gay people kicking their asses if their names and addresses were publicized.
Today the Secretary of State's office reports that the Supreme Court will meet on January 15 to review several cases, voting whether to hear or reject each case, including the case on R-71:
If the court declines to take the case, the 9th Circuit Court’s decision will stand. If the court accepts the case, it will likely be argued in April, with a decision to be handed down by the end of June. There also is a state court injunction entered by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks that also prevents the release of the R-71 petitions. The case in front of Judge Hicks is stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s action. ...Early in December, Deputy Solicitor General William Collins of the State Attorney General’s Office urged the Supreme Court to not take the case, and to allow the 9th Circuit decision to stand. Collins said several states allow release, and that the First Amendment challenge is only now arising, indicating that there is no important national question involved.
I hope that the Supreme Court takes the case. They should reject once and forever the ludicrous argument that bigots have special rights to hide while they restrict the rights of minorities. Moreover, laws shouldn't be made in a vacuum, especially by religious fanatics.
1
Given that argument, all those who voted for or against R-71 should also have their names released...since they "participated in the lawmaking process".
Given that argument, all those who voted for or against R-71 should also have their names released...since they "participated in the lawmaking process".
3
your arguments are lousy. the argument that we need this info for a particular purpose concedes that if the court thinks the purpose sucks, they should rule against you. the better argument is they SIGNED IN PUBLIC IN FRONT OF A STRANGER with absolutely no expectation of privacy probably knowing OTHER STRANGERS would see their signatures inluding the sig. gathering folks and the campaign who might even database all those names! they also must be deemed to know that state law says unless a specific exemption applies this is disclosable. the court recently said the info on your cell phone is private. there was a great reason to get the info in that case...the cops had just arrested some felonious dude and wanted to know his felonious associates' phone nos.! the reason for the info should never be the test, you have the right to privacy (as in teh phone) based on reas. expecation of privacy. you and your phone company , you reasonably expect privacy. you and some dude at Walmart taking signatures for a public petition to change public laws, where we know the govt. will count the signatures and scrutinize them....you don't. you generally don't have privacy interests in your NAME which by definition isn't private. this petition case is far simpler than you are making it.
4
@3 I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but you will be happy to know that the fact that signatures are collected in public and the petitions sheets are visible to an unknown number of strangers is indeed an argument being used in defense of the public disclosure law. You can read all the court filings here:
http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initi…
http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initi…
5
"Secret Santa" rules don't apply when you sign a public petition to place an initiative on the ballot, you pathetic, moronic cowards.
The Ninth Circuit Court's ruling is correct and should stand.
Judge Dick Hicks? ...how appropriately named.
The Ninth Circuit Court's ruling is correct and should stand.
Judge Dick Hicks? ...how appropriately named.
7
Unfortunately, if they do take the case, that will more likely indicate a willingness to overturn the 9th Circuit.
@1 There's a difference between voting on a proposition and petitioning the government to place a measure on the ballot.
@3 The reason for the alleged invasion of privacy is important in this case because hiding signatures from the public may lead to measures being improperly placed on the ballot.
Indeed, in this case, there are allegations that there were irregularities in the collection of signatures. Surely the public has an interest in being able to verify the integrity of the process.
I hope that the Supreme Court takes the case. They should reject once and forever the ludicrous argument that bigots have special rights to hide while they restrict the rights of minorities.
Unfortunately, if they do take the case, that will more likely indicate a willingness to overturn the 9th Circuit.
@1 There's a difference between voting on a proposition and petitioning the government to place a measure on the ballot.
@3 The reason for the alleged invasion of privacy is important in this case because hiding signatures from the public may lead to measures being improperly placed on the ballot.
Indeed, in this case, there are allegations that there were irregularities in the collection of signatures. Surely the public has an interest in being able to verify the integrity of the process.
9
While the Court is potentially interested because of the First Amendment implications, I'm still introducing legislation during the 2010 legislative session to clarify that petitions are public record.
Period.
It is vital that we as a state take a strong stand for open, transparent access to public information. This is not really about R-71, it's about the public's fundamental right to sign petitions--part of our state's history and DNA-- being met with an obligation for that information to be on the record.
Here's my blog entry about the new legislation that is supported by a large coalition of open government advocates.
If you believe in transparency, I hope you'll stand with us.
http://reuvencarlyle36.com/2009/12/11/op…
Here's the link for House Bill 2418;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.…
Your partner in service,
Reuven Carlyle
State Representative
36th District
www.reuvencarlyle36.com
Period.
It is vital that we as a state take a strong stand for open, transparent access to public information. This is not really about R-71, it's about the public's fundamental right to sign petitions--part of our state's history and DNA-- being met with an obligation for that information to be on the record.
Here's my blog entry about the new legislation that is supported by a large coalition of open government advocates.
If you believe in transparency, I hope you'll stand with us.
http://reuvencarlyle36.com/2009/12/11/op…
Here's the link for House Bill 2418;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.…
Your partner in service,
Reuven Carlyle
State Representative
36th District
www.reuvencarlyle36.com
11
This Court will rule in favor of the bigots. You kind of have to read United States v. Lopez and then Gonzales v. Raich to appreciate just how fucking solipsistic recent Court decisions are on questions of federalism and states' rights. That fucker Scalia will keep the Court right on the front of the culture wars as much as he can as long as he can.
I hope that the Supreme Court takes the case.
This Court will rule in favor of the bigots. You kind of have to read United States v. Lopez and then Gonzales v. Raich to appreciate just how fucking solipsistic recent Court decisions are on questions of federalism and states' rights. That fucker Scalia will keep the Court right on the front of the culture wars as much as he can as long as he can.
12
I still don't see how this is about bigotry, even if one of the parties in the suit is mostly bigots.
How many Seattleites would sign Initiative 75 now if they knew that their names and addresses would be posted on some web site, so their friends and employers and customers could all find out who is a pothead? All you're accomplishing here is making sure that anybody who signs a petition needs to rethink it before signing, since it can be used against them by all sorts of strangers and acquaintances. For the rest of their lives, somebody will be able to look up online in one or more databases what petitions they signed. Fan-fucking-tastic.
What the hell do any of those questions have to do with anti-gay bigotry? How does supporting gay rights mean you also have to support publishing the names and addresses of everyone who signs a petition?
Deluding yourself into thinking these orthogonal questions have anything in common tells us that you are too personally involved and have lost your perspective, Mr. Holden.
How many Seattleites would sign Initiative 75 now if they knew that their names and addresses would be posted on some web site, so their friends and employers and customers could all find out who is a pothead? All you're accomplishing here is making sure that anybody who signs a petition needs to rethink it before signing, since it can be used against them by all sorts of strangers and acquaintances. For the rest of their lives, somebody will be able to look up online in one or more databases what petitions they signed. Fan-fucking-tastic.
What the hell do any of those questions have to do with anti-gay bigotry? How does supporting gay rights mean you also have to support publishing the names and addresses of everyone who signs a petition?
Deluding yourself into thinking these orthogonal questions have anything in common tells us that you are too personally involved and have lost your perspective, Mr. Holden.
13
@12 As someone who has signed anti-drug war petitions for ballot propositions, I can assure you I don't give a flying fuck about whether anyone goes looking for my name on a ballot proposition.
If an employer actually did call me in and ask me about my support for such a measure, I'd politely inform them that my personal political activities aren't any of their business.
And if anyone was dumb enough to assume that I'm a pothead (which, as it happens, I'm not) based on my signature, I'd point out that there are all kinds of great reasons for supporting measures that tend towards decriminalization, ranging from the money wasted prosecuting such crimes, to the way illegal drugs encourage criminal enterprises, to the infringements on civil liberties that arise directly from the War on Drugs.
In short, I have the courage of my convictions and I'm not afraid to articulate them in my capacity as a voter and a citizen. Which is precisely why I sign petitions for measures that I'm interested in.
If an employer actually did call me in and ask me about my support for such a measure, I'd politely inform them that my personal political activities aren't any of their business.
And if anyone was dumb enough to assume that I'm a pothead (which, as it happens, I'm not) based on my signature, I'd point out that there are all kinds of great reasons for supporting measures that tend towards decriminalization, ranging from the money wasted prosecuting such crimes, to the way illegal drugs encourage criminal enterprises, to the infringements on civil liberties that arise directly from the War on Drugs.
In short, I have the courage of my convictions and I'm not afraid to articulate them in my capacity as a voter and a citizen. Which is precisely why I sign petitions for measures that I'm interested in.
14
@13
Bully for you. And do you really think there are enough people like you to have gotten it on the ballot? Ask Dominic Holden; he ran the petition drive. That baby barely squeaked by and they had to pay signature gatherers to do it. A chilling effect this strong would have been more than enough to deep-six I-75 and discourage any more efforts like it.
And then you could sit there patting yourself on the back for being so brave, while I-75 became a forgotten footnote. You're lucky that you can afford to pick and choose employers, or afford to risk pissing off your boss. Lots of regular people are lucky to have a job and losing their health benefits would be devastating. They have bills, they have sick kids, and they have responsibilities. A lot of people who signed I-75 don't even smoke pot but they wanted to do what was right. But would they risk their job? Not in million years.
So it's easy for you do be smug. You're obviously quite comfortable but that's not how most people's lives work.
Bully for you. And do you really think there are enough people like you to have gotten it on the ballot? Ask Dominic Holden; he ran the petition drive. That baby barely squeaked by and they had to pay signature gatherers to do it. A chilling effect this strong would have been more than enough to deep-six I-75 and discourage any more efforts like it.
And then you could sit there patting yourself on the back for being so brave, while I-75 became a forgotten footnote. You're lucky that you can afford to pick and choose employers, or afford to risk pissing off your boss. Lots of regular people are lucky to have a job and losing their health benefits would be devastating. They have bills, they have sick kids, and they have responsibilities. A lot of people who signed I-75 don't even smoke pot but they wanted to do what was right. But would they risk their job? Not in million years.
So it's easy for you do be smug. You're obviously quite comfortable but that's not how most people's lives work.
15
@12 some people believe in signing any and all initiative and referendum petitions no matter the subject because they believe that voters should have as much direct say as possible. I personally would never sign a petition that represented legislation I didn't also support, but not everyone feels the way I do about it.
16
@14, what chilling effect? as far as i know the plaintiffs have not proven any chilling effect. they did, in fact, get the measure on the ballot despite all their allegations. and, many people said they in fact signed the petition when they otherwise wouldn't have just to prove they weren't afraid to have their names publicly associated with ugly legislation. so really, there seemed to be a warming effect rather than a chilling effect.
17
Link to the bill, since Rep Carlyle wasn't signed in:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.…
@elenchos
Transparency ALWAYS trumps other concerns in anything and everything. Shame, ego, and pride are the greatest weapons and weaknesses we have as a society.
Shame is what stops us from doing something wrong. Not the law, not our upbringing, not our morals or ethics. Boil it all down and that's all you have. If you feel shame at being known for having done something, or think you'll feel shame at the repercussions of an action, it stops you.
Ego trumps shame, but can stop you from doing the right things as well. Pride trumps both.
Shame is what will keep the truly shit ballots and iniatives at bay if this legislation passes. Let's pray to God it does for the betterment of society.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.…
@elenchos
Transparency ALWAYS trumps other concerns in anything and everything. Shame, ego, and pride are the greatest weapons and weaknesses we have as a society.
Shame is what stops us from doing something wrong. Not the law, not our upbringing, not our morals or ethics. Boil it all down and that's all you have. If you feel shame at being known for having done something, or think you'll feel shame at the repercussions of an action, it stops you.
Ego trumps shame, but can stop you from doing the right things as well. Pride trumps both.
Shame is what will keep the truly shit ballots and iniatives at bay if this legislation passes. Let's pray to God it does for the betterment of society.
18
@4
am arguing with Dominic and elenchos and others who seems to think we have to prove there's a good purpose or some kind of need to see these signatures, or, in the opposite vein, that there's some kind of need or purpose in keeping them secret, which is actually agreement on a vague "good cause" type standard, which is a bad argument, because (a) all initiatives should be treated the same, (b) we might not make that argument in this case in fact it virtually invites this conservative court to rule against us, as they will certainly find greater cause in preventing bigots from having their doornobs licked by gays, and (c) it's irrelevant under the law which is all about expectations of privacy, so thank you very much for agreeing with me.
PS to pot smokers: come out of the closet already you are 40% of the population. if you would do that, it would be legal within six months. man up. espouse your positions. own them. advocate for them. you can't expect to win political fights hiding in the shadows!
am arguing with Dominic and elenchos and others who seems to think we have to prove there's a good purpose or some kind of need to see these signatures, or, in the opposite vein, that there's some kind of need or purpose in keeping them secret, which is actually agreement on a vague "good cause" type standard, which is a bad argument, because (a) all initiatives should be treated the same, (b) we might not make that argument in this case in fact it virtually invites this conservative court to rule against us, as they will certainly find greater cause in preventing bigots from having their doornobs licked by gays, and (c) it's irrelevant under the law which is all about expectations of privacy, so thank you very much for agreeing with me.
PS to pot smokers: come out of the closet already you are 40% of the population. if you would do that, it would be legal within six months. man up. espouse your positions. own them. advocate for them. you can't expect to win political fights hiding in the shadows!
19
@17
Your assumption is that peer pressure is always superior in moral judgment to private opinion. This is demonstrably false. I-75 is proof of that. Most people support the drug war in public because they're afraid of what others will say about them. Racial discrimination and segregation are the same.
But really, if you think about it, anybody who believed the balderdash you're trying to sell would want to amend the US Constitution to make everyone's vote public too. You don't believe that people would vote better with a public ballot box instead of a secret ballot, do you?
The mistake here is mixing up a voter with a representative. Members of the legislature are supposed to represent the will of their constituents, and so naturally you need to know how they voted. The voters need to hold them accountable. But individual voters represent nobody but themselves and that is precisely why their spouse, pastor, boss, neighbor, or political enemy has no business coming after them for how they voted, or for a petition they signed.
Your assumption is that peer pressure is always superior in moral judgment to private opinion. This is demonstrably false. I-75 is proof of that. Most people support the drug war in public because they're afraid of what others will say about them. Racial discrimination and segregation are the same.
But really, if you think about it, anybody who believed the balderdash you're trying to sell would want to amend the US Constitution to make everyone's vote public too. You don't believe that people would vote better with a public ballot box instead of a secret ballot, do you?
The mistake here is mixing up a voter with a representative. Members of the legislature are supposed to represent the will of their constituents, and so naturally you need to know how they voted. The voters need to hold them accountable. But individual voters represent nobody but themselves and that is precisely why their spouse, pastor, boss, neighbor, or political enemy has no business coming after them for how they voted, or for a petition they signed.
20
@12 - the law (or election rule, or whatever) ALREADY states that the names & addresses of people who sign petitions are to be released upon request. The anti-71 folks are trying to be exempted from that law.
I could understand someone believing this law is unfair and wanting to change it for that reason. However, I suspect that these people are trying to get it changed in order to clear the way for a more hard-core, discriminatory, hate-based agenda and are trying to make it LOOK like all they want is an itty bitty exemption for the signers of *this* petition. (I bet a lot more people would sign a petition for, say, an anti-interracial marriage referendum, if they knew that their confidentiality was assured...)
I could understand someone believing this law is unfair and wanting to change it for that reason. However, I suspect that these people are trying to get it changed in order to clear the way for a more hard-core, discriminatory, hate-based agenda and are trying to make it LOOK like all they want is an itty bitty exemption for the signers of *this* petition. (I bet a lot more people would sign a petition for, say, an anti-interracial marriage referendum, if they knew that their confidentiality was assured...)
21
And I still don't see how this has anything to do with bigotry. You'd normally expect progressives to want to empower the individual petitioner and the corporations and the rich to want to silence those who might sign a petition.
But because this one single issue puts gay rights on the side of intimidating petition signers, all of a sudden you have supposedly progressive people wanting to scare people away from signing their names? It makes no sense.
But because this one single issue puts gay rights on the side of intimidating petition signers, all of a sudden you have supposedly progressive people wanting to scare people away from signing their names? It makes no sense.
22
@20
The law has never been abused this way -- posting the names and addresses on the web. Which is exactly why the law is at risk of being struck down.
The law has never been abused this way -- posting the names and addresses on the web. Which is exactly why the law is at risk of being struck down.
23
I'm divided on this.
Why give them privacy? They signed this stuff in public. All other petition records of signatures, in my understanding, are open to public scrutiny. Why the sudden change? Are you afraid of being found out that you're against gay equality? If so, I am inclined to say 'too fucking bad'.
On the other hand, do we want to threaten them with peer pressure this way? Most of our ballots are secret for a reason. This isn't the voter record, though, this is just petition signatures. And again for personal reasons I'm inclined to say 'boo fucking hoo' since they tried to strip away my rights. But, getting over that, it remains that it's just the petition signatures. If your coworkers see it and get angry at you? Don't be a hateful dick, you moron.*
*I'm aware how this could apply in reverse to, say, legalizing marijuana, but who in their right minds has an active spite of potheads? I can't think of many sensible scenarios that would work that way.
Why give them privacy? They signed this stuff in public. All other petition records of signatures, in my understanding, are open to public scrutiny. Why the sudden change? Are you afraid of being found out that you're against gay equality? If so, I am inclined to say 'too fucking bad'.
On the other hand, do we want to threaten them with peer pressure this way? Most of our ballots are secret for a reason. This isn't the voter record, though, this is just petition signatures. And again for personal reasons I'm inclined to say 'boo fucking hoo' since they tried to strip away my rights. But, getting over that, it remains that it's just the petition signatures. If your coworkers see it and get angry at you? Don't be a hateful dick, you moron.*
*I'm aware how this could apply in reverse to, say, legalizing marijuana, but who in their right minds has an active spite of potheads? I can't think of many sensible scenarios that would work that way.
26
@14 Honestly, I really don't see this as a problem as a practical matter. How many employers will even take the time to run through each petition to see if their employees are signing or not? And if they do, what, precisely will they do with the information? Give me a drug test? They already have the right to do that anytime they want.
If they suspect that I'm a pothead (and assuming that they care), chances are it's my work habits that will tip them off, not whether I signed some petition.
I get your point, and I guess there's probably some boss somewhere who's enough of a prick to do what you're suggesting, but for the most part, I really think you're setting up a straw man here.
But there's a simple solution if you do have a prick for a boss. Don't sign the petition unless and until you have another firm job offer in hand (and I would be scrambling to find something, anything else to get out from under an employer that actually scrutinized ballot petitions to see how their employees voted).
And of course, if you did get fired for signing a petition, then sue their asses from here to eternity.
If they suspect that I'm a pothead (and assuming that they care), chances are it's my work habits that will tip them off, not whether I signed some petition.
I get your point, and I guess there's probably some boss somewhere who's enough of a prick to do what you're suggesting, but for the most part, I really think you're setting up a straw man here.
But there's a simple solution if you do have a prick for a boss. Don't sign the petition unless and until you have another firm job offer in hand (and I would be scrambling to find something, anything else to get out from under an employer that actually scrutinized ballot petitions to see how their employees voted).
And of course, if you did get fired for signing a petition, then sue their asses from here to eternity.
27
@24
Announcing their true purpose was a tactical mistake? Tactical. Telling the truth about what you were going to do was a mistake. Tactically. Because shedding light on what you intend to do, allowing the public to think about the ramifications of your actions before they cannot be undone, is tactically wrong.
That is rich. Give me the pretty speech about transparency again. I like bedtime stories.
@26
Right, employees can sue because they got fired for signing a petition. Yeah, because their boss going to hand them a notarized affidavit stating the real illegal reason they fired them. Chances are no boss will make that tactical mistake. Some people know that when you're up to no good, you keep your mouth shut about your motives, and make up a good story for why you do your dirty deeds.
Announcing their true purpose was a tactical mistake? Tactical. Telling the truth about what you were going to do was a mistake. Tactically. Because shedding light on what you intend to do, allowing the public to think about the ramifications of your actions before they cannot be undone, is tactically wrong.
That is rich. Give me the pretty speech about transparency again. I like bedtime stories.
@26
Right, employees can sue because they got fired for signing a petition. Yeah, because their boss going to hand them a notarized affidavit stating the real illegal reason they fired them. Chances are no boss will make that tactical mistake. Some people know that when you're up to no good, you keep your mouth shut about your motives, and make up a good story for why you do your dirty deeds.
28
@23
Who has spite for potheads? Day care centers. Schools. Churches. The armed forces. Truck and taxi companies. Airlines. The list goes on.
If it takes a millsecond to run the names of every candidate day care provider or airplane pilot through a database before you schedule them for a job interview, why not? Who would know?
Who has spite for potheads? Day care centers. Schools. Churches. The armed forces. Truck and taxi companies. Airlines. The list goes on.
If it takes a millsecond to run the names of every candidate day care provider or airplane pilot through a database before you schedule them for a job interview, why not? Who would know?
29
Elenchos. When we gathered signatures for I-75, folks asked if their signatures could become public all the time. We said, "Yes." And they signed anyway.
Was it hard to get all the signatures? Yes. Petitioning is difficult. Also, King County Elections put up obstacle after obstacle when it was time to verify them (you may recall the high-profile scandals of inefficiency and malfeasance that plagued the elections office at the time).
But our intent was never to hide the names of the petition signers, and we never said we would. That year Hempfest also held the theme "Pot Pride -- Come Out of the Closet," which shows we were about people identifying themselves as pot smokers and supporters of drug-law reform. And Hempfest is hardly a bastion of anonymity.
Petitions signers' names should be be a matter of public record, whether it's about relaxing pot enforcement or oppressing gay people. And they should be public whether it's my name on the campaign paperwork or Larry Stickney's name. If a political cause is so shameful that people are willing to go to the Supreme Court to avoid being outed for it, they probably shouldn't support that cause. And if pot smokers--who actually risk real ramifications--can sign a petition in their defense with the risk of being outed, then surely some bigot can do it, too.
30
Dominic, you answered them yes if they asked if their names could become public. But only if they asked. How come? Why not tell everyone before you let them sign?
Did you consider telling them all you would be putting their names and addresses on a web site? What effect do you think telling them they'd go on a web site would have had?
I guess if the courts release the names, we can all sit back and wait for the amusing irony when a progressive but controversial initiative petition is being passed around and see how that feels. I like irony.
Did you consider telling them all you would be putting their names and addresses on a web site? What effect do you think telling them they'd go on a web site would have had?
I guess if the courts release the names, we can all sit back and wait for the amusing irony when a progressive but controversial initiative petition is being passed around and see how that feels. I like irony.
32
30/elenchos: "I guess if the courts release the names, we can all sit back and wait for the amusing irony when a progressive but controversial initiative petition is being passed around and see how that feels. I like irony."
It would feel fine to me. I can't think of anything progressive I'd like to see enacted into law that I'd be unwilling to stand behind.
It would feel fine to me. I can't think of anything progressive I'd like to see enacted into law that I'd be unwilling to stand behind.
33
19/elenchos: "But really, if you think about it, anybody who believed the balderdash you're trying to sell would want to amend the US Constitution to make everyone's vote public too. You don't believe that people would vote better with a public ballot box instead of a secret ballot, do you?"
From an October 15th article in the P-I...
Washington's Attorney General's Office, which represented the secretary of state before the Circuit Court panel, argued that voters had approved the Public Records Act and that signature gathering is a very public process — unlike the private act of voting.
"These petitions are not like a secret ballot, but amount to taking part in our legislative process, which is required to be open and accountable," Secretary of State Sam Reed said.
From an October 15th article in the P-I...
Washington's Attorney General's Office, which represented the secretary of state before the Circuit Court panel, argued that voters had approved the Public Records Act and that signature gathering is a very public process — unlike the private act of voting.
"These petitions are not like a secret ballot, but amount to taking part in our legislative process, which is required to be open and accountable," Secretary of State Sam Reed said.
34
#31, "The case in front of Judge Hicks is stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s action. ... " The BIG boys and girls.
36
elenchos
You seem to be operating on the assumption that the initiative process is or should be a form of protected speech, and that the disclosure process should have to pass some kind of First Amendment scrutiny test in order to be valid -- like it has to further a compelling state interest or something.
The Washington State initiative process is purely a creature of Washington State constitutional law. Initiatives don't exist at the federal level. At the state level, dozens of Washington State Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the initiative process is an exercise of the legislative power under Article II of our local constitution. This implies a lot of things about what the initiative process is. It also implies a lot of things about what it's not.
Signing an initiative petition is not an expression of popular sovereignty, like voting. Nor is it common speech, in the sense of the First Amendment, anymore than votes in a legislative session are common speech. To put it in terms you might understand: the state has a compelling interest in maintaining a congressional voting record that attributes specific votes to specific members of congress; the same compelling interest applies to the initiative process, which is an exercise of the same legislative power that the state congress uses. Insofar as the state's intention to disclose the names of petition signatories was a matter of public record, doing so is within the state's plenary power.
The only way the federal government could interfere in that process is if federal judges, who are unfamiliar with the workings of Washington's initiative process, or who have a political agenda, circumvent both Washington's constitution and our statutes to equate an exercise of legislative power through a form of direct democracy to simple political speech. Doing so would utterly fail to account for the difference between a non-binding expression of political belief and a binding procedural exercise of legislative power. But, given the number of federal judges who are Republican appointees, I wouldn't put it past them.
More...
You seem to be operating on the assumption that the initiative process is or should be a form of protected speech, and that the disclosure process should have to pass some kind of First Amendment scrutiny test in order to be valid -- like it has to further a compelling state interest or something.
The Washington State initiative process is purely a creature of Washington State constitutional law. Initiatives don't exist at the federal level. At the state level, dozens of Washington State Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the initiative process is an exercise of the legislative power under Article II of our local constitution. This implies a lot of things about what the initiative process is. It also implies a lot of things about what it's not.
Signing an initiative petition is not an expression of popular sovereignty, like voting. Nor is it common speech, in the sense of the First Amendment, anymore than votes in a legislative session are common speech. To put it in terms you might understand: the state has a compelling interest in maintaining a congressional voting record that attributes specific votes to specific members of congress; the same compelling interest applies to the initiative process, which is an exercise of the same legislative power that the state congress uses. Insofar as the state's intention to disclose the names of petition signatories was a matter of public record, doing so is within the state's plenary power.
The only way the federal government could interfere in that process is if federal judges, who are unfamiliar with the workings of Washington's initiative process, or who have a political agenda, circumvent both Washington's constitution and our statutes to equate an exercise of legislative power through a form of direct democracy to simple political speech. Doing so would utterly fail to account for the difference between a non-binding expression of political belief and a binding procedural exercise of legislative power. But, given the number of federal judges who are Republican appointees, I wouldn't put it past them.
40
@29
I've been in the minority of that bastion of anonymity. As a minority I rely on the Stranger to support my position. I smoke pot, a sweet indulgence that has weaned itself yearly through the course of nature (I figure by age 70 I will have gone without toking up for a decade). A slight paranoia always exists, so i prefer a more intimate group of friends when getting high. Even then I often will find myself doing god awful still lifes or abstract portraits of a willing comrade.
I'm all for drug law reform, as well for health care and the petition process, only, Diminic, lay your hands off of my ovaries. There, I've come out of the closet regarding my sexuality. I'm reminded of the cinematic joke: Where does Kobe Bryant get his kefir after a game with a Turkish squad? I swear, my wife loves her tedious knitting and strange milk products.
I've been in the minority of that bastion of anonymity. As a minority I rely on the Stranger to support my position. I smoke pot, a sweet indulgence that has weaned itself yearly through the course of nature (I figure by age 70 I will have gone without toking up for a decade). A slight paranoia always exists, so i prefer a more intimate group of friends when getting high. Even then I often will find myself doing god awful still lifes or abstract portraits of a willing comrade.
I'm all for drug law reform, as well for health care and the petition process, only, Diminic, lay your hands off of my ovaries. There, I've come out of the closet regarding my sexuality. I'm reminded of the cinematic joke: Where does Kobe Bryant get his kefir after a game with a Turkish squad? I swear, my wife loves her tedious knitting and strange milk products.
41
By elenchos's logic,
It will soon be illegal to report what
A) What citizens attend public government functions.
B) What those citizens say at the same public government functions.
It will soon be illegal to report what
A) What citizens attend public government functions.
B) What those citizens say at the same public government functions.
42
By elenchos's logic,
It will soon be illegal to report:
A) What citizens attend public government functions.
B) What those citizens say at the same public government functions.
It will soon be illegal to report:
A) What citizens attend public government functions.
B) What those citizens say at the same public government functions.
43
@19 You say the danger here is confusing a voter with a representative. I say that those who sign petitions PUT THEMSELVES IN THAT POSITION. We are a republic, not a democracy. We elect representatives to draft and pass laws on our behalves. When certain people want to go around the process and DRAFT LAWS THEMSELVES they then move from being a voter to a representative (in this case a representative of one, themselves).
For the record, I am not a fan of direct democracy AT ALL. That road leads to California and it's awesome state of affairs.
For the record, I am not a fan of direct democracy AT ALL. That road leads to California and it's awesome state of affairs.
44
Much of these post have missed most of the arguments in this case. Interesting that so little has remained in memories.
1. The Tacoma federal jurist, Ben Settle, appointed by Bush, knew exactly who he was playing to when he cloaked the signatures from disclosure and ruled in well stated jurist form for direct review by the U S Supreme Court. He wrote an interesting decision, very academic, directed to the conservatives on the Supreme Court... with making history in mind.
2. Since the Voting Rights Act, and signers are voters, there has been a giant interest at the federal level in protecting voters, signers, from intimidation. Remember all the tricks to keep Blacks from voting in the South which continue to this day. Thus, the threat of disclosure, very world wide public as in the internet, forever and always public as possible, that opens the door wide open to retaliation in any form for signing. First from activists, left or right, who come to your home, scare kids and dogs, and call your boss, picket you home or business, or church. Secondly by any and all reporting agencies - media and data banks.
The historic trend, important to identify, is to protect all civic acts, voters, from any possible form of intimidation or retaliation. Nothing to chill participation in any civic act - as in a petition to change law directed to govt.
3. There is a history of protection of leftist, socialist political parties from disclosure of finaces when in an election. The US Supremes ruled in that matter decades ago. And the ruling was used to protect a socialist party here in a Seattle election, FSP, a few years back. In that US Court ruling, the standard of proof was very low - just the fear of what might happen if names of donors were made public. That ruling to protect lefty parties with a very low standard of threat, just fear needed, no overt acts as proof ... I think it fortells the thinking of the Supremes.
4. Public disclosure is not need to verify to get on the ballot. Washington just did that. Public release was not allowed. The signature drive was verified and the measure proceeded to the ballot and a vote.
5. The Internet is an issue of force here as in shrinking privacy in many ways, and who knows what future uses can happen once material is in world wide wide open data bases ( ie. Google, and all other, and some bootleg).
6. The issue has moved far beyond Approve 71. The concept of who is bad or good from that effort will not be in play at the Court.
7. State laws and state constitutions will yield to the US Supremes, all 50 states. This case has sweeping implications in it. I think the Court will take it. I think they like to make history and the privacy of voters, signers, is a nation wide issue.
**** If they take the case for complete review, they will strike down disclosure of signers, bolstering their previous decision, and claiming to protect against all and any any fear or possible intimidation at the front end of the process, putting your name on the paper, very permanent, which is a formal petition to government.
(Remember Thom Payne, fearing the King, never used his own name on the rousing printing which helped start our own revolution ... was that a disclosure issue involving his fear and real possible intimidation?)
More...
1. The Tacoma federal jurist, Ben Settle, appointed by Bush, knew exactly who he was playing to when he cloaked the signatures from disclosure and ruled in well stated jurist form for direct review by the U S Supreme Court. He wrote an interesting decision, very academic, directed to the conservatives on the Supreme Court... with making history in mind.
2. Since the Voting Rights Act, and signers are voters, there has been a giant interest at the federal level in protecting voters, signers, from intimidation. Remember all the tricks to keep Blacks from voting in the South which continue to this day. Thus, the threat of disclosure, very world wide public as in the internet, forever and always public as possible, that opens the door wide open to retaliation in any form for signing. First from activists, left or right, who come to your home, scare kids and dogs, and call your boss, picket you home or business, or church. Secondly by any and all reporting agencies - media and data banks.
The historic trend, important to identify, is to protect all civic acts, voters, from any possible form of intimidation or retaliation. Nothing to chill participation in any civic act - as in a petition to change law directed to govt.
3. There is a history of protection of leftist, socialist political parties from disclosure of finaces when in an election. The US Supremes ruled in that matter decades ago. And the ruling was used to protect a socialist party here in a Seattle election, FSP, a few years back. In that US Court ruling, the standard of proof was very low - just the fear of what might happen if names of donors were made public. That ruling to protect lefty parties with a very low standard of threat, just fear needed, no overt acts as proof ... I think it fortells the thinking of the Supremes.
4. Public disclosure is not need to verify to get on the ballot. Washington just did that. Public release was not allowed. The signature drive was verified and the measure proceeded to the ballot and a vote.
5. The Internet is an issue of force here as in shrinking privacy in many ways, and who knows what future uses can happen once material is in world wide wide open data bases ( ie. Google, and all other, and some bootleg).
6. The issue has moved far beyond Approve 71. The concept of who is bad or good from that effort will not be in play at the Court.
7. State laws and state constitutions will yield to the US Supremes, all 50 states. This case has sweeping implications in it. I think the Court will take it. I think they like to make history and the privacy of voters, signers, is a nation wide issue.
**** If they take the case for complete review, they will strike down disclosure of signers, bolstering their previous decision, and claiming to protect against all and any any fear or possible intimidation at the front end of the process, putting your name on the paper, very permanent, which is a formal petition to government.
(Remember Thom Payne, fearing the King, never used his own name on the rousing printing which helped start our own revolution ... was that a disclosure issue involving his fear and real possible intimidation?)
45
@43: As an East Coast native, I completely agree. We regularly vote on things that are way above our pay grade and no amount of voter education will make us able to make informed decisions about some of the complicated issues we're asked to give our opinions about.
46
An interesting analysis, Zyler, and if you're not a lawyer, you should be. (Full disclosure: I am.)
For the reasons you've stated, I think the Supremes - especially this particular batch that we've got right now - will opine that this information is private and shouldn't be disclosed. Not a politically correct thing to say here among all the hipsters, so I've kept my mouth shut so far, but I just can't see this playing out any other way.
For the reasons you've stated, I think the Supremes - especially this particular batch that we've got right now - will opine that this information is private and shouldn't be disclosed. Not a politically correct thing to say here among all the hipsters, so I've kept my mouth shut so far, but I just can't see this playing out any other way.
47
I'm getting the boards ready to post the names, addresses and signatures on as we speak ...
Let the truth set you free, h8rs!
Let the truth set you free, h8rs!
48
44
Very insightful.
Rare on Slog.
The bully thug homos have made the Court's work/decision easier with their heavy handed treatment/harassment of Prop 8 donors and their coy stated intentions to force "uncomfortable" conversations.
Thugs, prepare to be disappointed...
Very insightful.
Rare on Slog.
The bully thug homos have made the Court's work/decision easier with their heavy handed treatment/harassment of Prop 8 donors and their coy stated intentions to force "uncomfortable" conversations.
Thugs, prepare to be disappointed...
49
In 1973, Washington's secretary of state ruled that signing an initiative or referendum petition is "a form of voting" and violating voters' privacy could have adverse political ramifications for those signing.
50
In the 1950s, Alabama tried to compel the NAACP to disclose its membership list. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that disclosure would burden the freedoms of expression and association that the First Amendment protects.
Nice company you're keeping, Will...
Nice company you're keeping, Will...
51
Judah and others:
All you're doing is re-stating that current law says the names are public and that it's not defined as voting. We're all aware of that and repeating it is begging the question. The courts are not needed to explain to us what Washington law says; they're going to decide whether or not Washington law should be overturned. It is logical that legislators face political consequences for their votes. But what is the logic behind retribution for petitioners? Besides making petitioners afraid to sign, what is the benefit?
The other thing you don't accomplish by re-stating the position ad nauseam is to explain what is bigoted about not wanting to publish the names of petitioners on a web site. What does that have to do with bigotry?
All you're doing is re-stating that current law says the names are public and that it's not defined as voting. We're all aware of that and repeating it is begging the question. The courts are not needed to explain to us what Washington law says; they're going to decide whether or not Washington law should be overturned. It is logical that legislators face political consequences for their votes. But what is the logic behind retribution for petitioners? Besides making petitioners afraid to sign, what is the benefit?
The other thing you don't accomplish by re-stating the position ad nauseam is to explain what is bigoted about not wanting to publish the names of petitioners on a web site. What does that have to do with bigotry?
52
The real question that the Court will address boils down to whether there's a public policy issue in keeping the names private. I submit that, especially given the clear malice which has already been demonstrated, the answer to that is a no-brainer.
53
Voting and signing petitions ARE NOT the same thing, and should not be treated the same. Just like donating to a campaign or a PAC or any other action to influence politics outside the normal channel of voting is open to the public so is signing a petition and so it should stay.
Too scared to actually attach your name to your beliefs? Fine, that is what the voting booth is for. Vote for those you thing will best represent you. Want to go above and beyond however, be prepared to have to stand up and be counted.
Too scared to actually attach your name to your beliefs? Fine, that is what the voting booth is for. Vote for those you thing will best represent you. Want to go above and beyond however, be prepared to have to stand up and be counted.
54
#53 - the court of opinion is not the U S Supreme court.
Vent all you wish about your feelings of what is courage and what is not - this is an issue of rights under the rubric of our rights of freedom of political speech - that most venerated and often strengthened right under the US Constitution ... ie. Bill of Rights.
And they - voting and signing - are close. Acts of civic engagement by citizens, voters = signers. Remember you have to be a registered voter to sign ... is that a link?
Shift gears, you all.
Vent all you wish about your feelings of what is courage and what is not - this is an issue of rights under the rubric of our rights of freedom of political speech - that most venerated and often strengthened right under the US Constitution ... ie. Bill of Rights.
And they - voting and signing - are close. Acts of civic engagement by citizens, voters = signers. Remember you have to be a registered voter to sign ... is that a link?
Shift gears, you all.
55
@54, Just b/c you say it is protected (private) speech does not make it so. If it were that clear cut then there would be no need for SCOTUS to rule on the matter would there?
To me it falls in the same category as campaign and PAC donations. Yes, it is protected under Free Speech, but that doesn't mean that your identity is. Do you think that is done to 'punish' those who wish to make political donations or put a message out, or b/c there are legitimate reasons for knowing who is behind such campaigns?
Why is this any different?
To me it falls in the same category as campaign and PAC donations. Yes, it is protected under Free Speech, but that doesn't mean that your identity is. Do you think that is done to 'punish' those who wish to make political donations or put a message out, or b/c there are legitimate reasons for knowing who is behind such campaigns?
Why is this any different?
56
#55 - I do not know what the Courts will do - but I think the case is excellent the Court will enlarge political free speech protections to cloak signing petitions.
Petition signer are one by one, 99 per cent just plan Joe and Jill.
Money in a campaign by a PAC is another issue.
Constitutional rights are individual rights, and I guess the arguments will be all about fear and intimidation of individuals who sign for any variety of reasons - some neutral on the substance of the petition - just get it on the ballot.
You forget the US Supreme court already protects left political groups who do not have to disclose donors in a political campaign because the Court surmised such donors might face bad acts if their names were forced to be public. City of Seattle disclosure laws lost, decision by fed judge in Seattle a decade ago.
The issue is not broad and sweeping, it is based on the perception of fear and intimidation - and if the court thinks those element exist they might move to protect rights as they see them.
I think they will act. My politics are left, but, I can see the merits of the case laid down by the first fed. jurist, Ben Settle, from a court in Tacoma. Before this I had never heard of him.
Time will tell.
Petition signer are one by one, 99 per cent just plan Joe and Jill.
Money in a campaign by a PAC is another issue.
Constitutional rights are individual rights, and I guess the arguments will be all about fear and intimidation of individuals who sign for any variety of reasons - some neutral on the substance of the petition - just get it on the ballot.
You forget the US Supreme court already protects left political groups who do not have to disclose donors in a political campaign because the Court surmised such donors might face bad acts if their names were forced to be public. City of Seattle disclosure laws lost, decision by fed judge in Seattle a decade ago.
The issue is not broad and sweeping, it is based on the perception of fear and intimidation - and if the court thinks those element exist they might move to protect rights as they see them.
I think they will act. My politics are left, but, I can see the merits of the case laid down by the first fed. jurist, Ben Settle, from a court in Tacoma. Before this I had never heard of him.
Time will tell.
57
"laws shouldn't be made in a vacuum, especially by religious fanatics."
What the fuck are you babbling about, Dominic?
What the fuck are you babbling about, Dominic?
58
@49 Wow. Washington's secretary of state, huh?
You know the secretary of state isn't actually empowered to make that call, right?
You know the secretary of state isn't actually empowered to make that call, right?
59
@51
And what we're all telling you is that the only way the federal courts would overturn Washington law in this case is if the federal judges are either mistaken about how the Washington initiative process works, or pursuing a political agenda to the exclusion of basic principles of federal law. It would be on a par with the federal courts deciding, based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments, that they have the power to overturn our state requirement of open congressional voting. The only time a federal court could be expected to do something like that is in the two cases I mention above: stupid, or political.
The reason withholding the names is a protection of bigots is that the Court's interference in this issue would be political on its face; the people who signed the petition were engaged in a form of legislating peculiar to Washington state and knew or should have known that their names would be a matter of public record under state law. Under any other circumstance, that would satisfy the Court. The only time the Court moves to allow shit like this is when it advances the socially conservative agenda of the party that appointed most of them (see Gonzales v. Raich). Overruling Washington law in this matter would be tantamount to a special dispensation of federal protection -- protections that nobody else would get -- for homophobic bigots.
The courts are not needed to explain to us what Washington law says; they're going to decide whether or not Washington law should be overturned.
And what we're all telling you is that the only way the federal courts would overturn Washington law in this case is if the federal judges are either mistaken about how the Washington initiative process works, or pursuing a political agenda to the exclusion of basic principles of federal law. It would be on a par with the federal courts deciding, based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments, that they have the power to overturn our state requirement of open congressional voting. The only time a federal court could be expected to do something like that is in the two cases I mention above: stupid, or political.
The reason withholding the names is a protection of bigots is that the Court's interference in this issue would be political on its face; the people who signed the petition were engaged in a form of legislating peculiar to Washington state and knew or should have known that their names would be a matter of public record under state law. Under any other circumstance, that would satisfy the Court. The only time the Court moves to allow shit like this is when it advances the socially conservative agenda of the party that appointed most of them (see Gonzales v. Raich). Overruling Washington law in this matter would be tantamount to a special dispensation of federal protection -- protections that nobody else would get -- for homophobic bigots.
61
@59
And what we're telling you is that the only way the federal courts would overturn Washington law in this case is if the federal judges determine that Washington law is violating the Constitutional rights of Washingtonians.
See how that works?
And what we're telling you is that the only way the federal courts would overturn Washington law in this case is if the federal judges determine that Washington law is violating the Constitutional rights of Washingtonians.
See how that works?
62
59
"a special dispensation of federal protection -- protections that nobody else would get -- for homophobic bigots."
now now...
go slip on some dry panties and we'll discuss this calmly.
any "protections" this ruling might create will be available to ALL citizens.
what if the NAACP tried to pass a measure to protect affirmative action programs.
what if the KKK and Aryan Nation said they were going to take the names of everyone who signed in favor and cut their throats.
would you want those brave civil rights supporters to get their throats cut?
we didn't think so...
"a special dispensation of federal protection -- protections that nobody else would get -- for homophobic bigots."
now now...
go slip on some dry panties and we'll discuss this calmly.
any "protections" this ruling might create will be available to ALL citizens.
what if the NAACP tried to pass a measure to protect affirmative action programs.
what if the KKK and Aryan Nation said they were going to take the names of everyone who signed in favor and cut their throats.
would you want those brave civil rights supporters to get their throats cut?
we didn't think so...
63
@60
No, nothing like hate crimes legislation.
@61
Yes, that is pretty much what you're saying. The unfortunate part is that you have no idea what it means.
@62
You're talking NAACP, the KKK, and people having their throats slit -- and I'm the one who needs to put on a pair of dry panties? And so the pot called the kettle histrionic. That's cute.
And, since you asked, in the situation you've described I would, in fact, expect everyone who signed the petition to go public. And I'd expect the police to protect them against a credible threat, and charge the people who made the threats with conspiracy if anything actually happened. But of course, none of that means anything in the current situation because the situation you're describing only resembles the one we're actually facing in your warped Turner Diaries wet dream.
No, nothing like hate crimes legislation.
@61
Yes, that is pretty much what you're saying. The unfortunate part is that you have no idea what it means.
@62
You're talking NAACP, the KKK, and people having their throats slit -- and I'm the one who needs to put on a pair of dry panties? And so the pot called the kettle histrionic. That's cute.
And, since you asked, in the situation you've described I would, in fact, expect everyone who signed the petition to go public. And I'd expect the police to protect them against a credible threat, and charge the people who made the threats with conspiracy if anything actually happened. But of course, none of that means anything in the current situation because the situation you're describing only resembles the one we're actually facing in your warped Turner Diaries wet dream.
64
Judah, you sound like some wingnut, ranting about activist judges. The Supreme Court sometimes overrules lower Federal courts, and sometimes upholds their decisions. That's why they are there. I'm sure every decision you don't like is purely political, what with you being always right.
If this had been an initiative to expand domestic partner rights, and a gang of fundie churches and neo-fascists wanted access to the names on the petition so they could put them all up on a web site, you'd see exactly the same players lined up on the opposite side.
I can tell how hard it is for progressives to support petitioner intimation when I see them here chanting over and over that voting and petitioning are totally different and that petitioners are like legislators. Yet they have no arguments as to why that is, because its so alien to them to be trying to weaken the power of individuals against institutions.
If petitioners are like legislators in a republic, then who are their constituents?
And what does this have to do with being a bigot? What is so bigoted about wanting to allow people to sign a petition without fear?
To me it's the bigots of the world who are in the business of instilling fear in those trying to express their individual conscience.
And why should a straight person give to shits about helping gay rights activists who are so ruthless and unethical? Doesn't hurt me if gays have no domestic partner rights, and I only support them because it's moral and ethical, but I don't want to be paling around with bullies.
If this had been an initiative to expand domestic partner rights, and a gang of fundie churches and neo-fascists wanted access to the names on the petition so they could put them all up on a web site, you'd see exactly the same players lined up on the opposite side.
I can tell how hard it is for progressives to support petitioner intimation when I see them here chanting over and over that voting and petitioning are totally different and that petitioners are like legislators. Yet they have no arguments as to why that is, because its so alien to them to be trying to weaken the power of individuals against institutions.
If petitioners are like legislators in a republic, then who are their constituents?
And what does this have to do with being a bigot? What is so bigoted about wanting to allow people to sign a petition without fear?
To me it's the bigots of the world who are in the business of instilling fear in those trying to express their individual conscience.
And why should a straight person give to shits about helping gay rights activists who are so ruthless and unethical? Doesn't hurt me if gays have no domestic partner rights, and I only support them because it's moral and ethical, but I don't want to be paling around with bullies.
65
Except of course that we have talked about why that is. In Washington State, the initiative/referendum power comes from Article II of our state constitution, which describes where the power to legislate is vested. The Washington State Supreme Court specified in Philadelphia II v. Gregoire (among other places) that the initiative power is legislative power -- distinct from the sovereign power of the people that is exercised in voting. Maybe, before you dismiss that distinction (again), you should demonstrate some understanding of what it means. Because I'm starting to get the feeling that you have no idea.
It's not a question of petitioners being "like legislators" -- it's a question of signing a petition being a form of legislating. The right to direct legislation is not guaranteed by the federal constitution. In fact, there's an argument that it is barred by Article I, §4, cl. 4, which guarantees a republican form of government to every state in the Union. The initiative/referendum process is a form of direct democracy. It's pretty much the opposite of a republican form of government. So when a Washington citizen signs an initiative petition, they aren't voting (see above re Gregoire) and they aren't just engaging in speech. They're governing. The Washington constitution says so and the Washington State Supreme Court says so. The act of legislating, of governing, is voluntary -- nobody has to use the petition process if they don't want to anymore than anyone has to serve in the state legislature if they don't want to. Legislators even have the option of abstaining from a particular vote. But when you legislate -- whether as a state legislator or a referendum signatory -- you act as a public figure whose identity and voting history is a matter of public record. This is true as a matter of principle, a matter of common law, and a matter of statute.
This statement displays a spectacular misunderstanding of (in no particular order) my arguments, the definition of "activist judges", the history of federal judicial review of state laws, the history of state court rulings on the nature and function of the iniative/referendum process, the common law, the history of the First Amendment, the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the practical differences between the federal government and state governments generally. Arguing with it would take more time than I'm willing to give you.
Leaving aside the fact that you haven't offered one iota of proof in support of this statement, I'll allow that you're about half-right. There are plenty of people -- you evidently among them -- who regard this entire debate as a clash of political interests rather than a legal question. So you're basically offering the "If the NAACP is legally entitled to (X) then the KKK should be to, and the NAACP would be wrong for trying to prevent the KKK from having (X) thing that the NAACP has already enjoyed." But while that statement may be morally correct (in a crude way), it's legally too simplistic: suppose the NAACP has been staging events on government property in contravention of federal law for years, but they just didn't know it and nobody at the attorney general's office knew it either. Then the KKK files for a permit to use the same land for an event -- someone does some research, discovers that using the land for those events is illegal, and files a suit to block the event. Should the KKK get to use the land, just because the NAACP has been allowed to do so in the past? And before you answer, think about the fact that answering "yes" would basically mean that all anyone had to do in order to override any law would be to demonstrate that it has ever not been enforced.
There are actual legal principles at stake here. Your facile analogies about the Jets versus the Sharks, and "paling around with bullies" are cute in a self-righteous-fifth-grader sort of way, but they're totally irrelevant to what's actually going on in this case.
More...
I see them here chanting over and over that voting and petitioning are totally different and that petitioners are like legislators. Yet they have no arguments as to why that is,
Except of course that we have talked about why that is. In Washington State, the initiative/referendum power comes from Article II of our state constitution, which describes where the power to legislate is vested. The Washington State Supreme Court specified in Philadelphia II v. Gregoire (among other places) that the initiative power is legislative power -- distinct from the sovereign power of the people that is exercised in voting. Maybe, before you dismiss that distinction (again), you should demonstrate some understanding of what it means. Because I'm starting to get the feeling that you have no idea.
If petitioners are like legislators in a republic, then who are their constituents?
It's not a question of petitioners being "like legislators" -- it's a question of signing a petition being a form of legislating. The right to direct legislation is not guaranteed by the federal constitution. In fact, there's an argument that it is barred by Article I, §4, cl. 4, which guarantees a republican form of government to every state in the Union. The initiative/referendum process is a form of direct democracy. It's pretty much the opposite of a republican form of government. So when a Washington citizen signs an initiative petition, they aren't voting (see above re Gregoire) and they aren't just engaging in speech. They're governing. The Washington constitution says so and the Washington State Supreme Court says so. The act of legislating, of governing, is voluntary -- nobody has to use the petition process if they don't want to anymore than anyone has to serve in the state legislature if they don't want to. Legislators even have the option of abstaining from a particular vote. But when you legislate -- whether as a state legislator or a referendum signatory -- you act as a public figure whose identity and voting history is a matter of public record. This is true as a matter of principle, a matter of common law, and a matter of statute.
Judah, you sound like some wingnut, ranting about activist judges. The Supreme Court sometimes overrules lower Federal courts, and sometimes upholds their decisions. That's why they are there.
This statement displays a spectacular misunderstanding of (in no particular order) my arguments, the definition of "activist judges", the history of federal judicial review of state laws, the history of state court rulings on the nature and function of the iniative/referendum process, the common law, the history of the First Amendment, the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the practical differences between the federal government and state governments generally. Arguing with it would take more time than I'm willing to give you.
If this had been an initiative to expand domestic partner rights, and a gang of fundie churches and neo-fascists wanted access to the names on the petition so they could put them all up on a web site, you'd see exactly the same players lined up on the opposite side.
Leaving aside the fact that you haven't offered one iota of proof in support of this statement, I'll allow that you're about half-right. There are plenty of people -- you evidently among them -- who regard this entire debate as a clash of political interests rather than a legal question. So you're basically offering the "If the NAACP is legally entitled to (X) then the KKK should be to, and the NAACP would be wrong for trying to prevent the KKK from having (X) thing that the NAACP has already enjoyed." But while that statement may be morally correct (in a crude way), it's legally too simplistic: suppose the NAACP has been staging events on government property in contravention of federal law for years, but they just didn't know it and nobody at the attorney general's office knew it either. Then the KKK files for a permit to use the same land for an event -- someone does some research, discovers that using the land for those events is illegal, and files a suit to block the event. Should the KKK get to use the land, just because the NAACP has been allowed to do so in the past? And before you answer, think about the fact that answering "yes" would basically mean that all anyone had to do in order to override any law would be to demonstrate that it has ever not been enforced.
There are actual legal principles at stake here. Your facile analogies about the Jets versus the Sharks, and "paling around with bullies" are cute in a self-righteous-fifth-grader sort of way, but they're totally irrelevant to what's actually going on in this case.
66
OK, so clearly you're feeling defensive. And I acknowledge your defensiveness.
Can anyone tell me what the desire to prevent petition signers from getting their houses TP'ed or having harassing phone calls at 3 am from a drunk Savage Love fans has to do with bigotry? Isn't it unethical to want to see opponents of domestic partner benefits harassed and terrorized? Opposing domestic partnership is a valid political opinion and any decent person would want to protect the safety and security of those who have expressed that opinion. The behavior of many activists who paint those on the other side as having no right to their opinions and beneath the protection of civilized society is rather fascist, isn't it?
It's very disturbing to me that those who don't fall into line and defend this harassment campaign are themselves called bigots.
Once again. Anybody. What does this have to do with bigotry?
Can anyone tell me what the desire to prevent petition signers from getting their houses TP'ed or having harassing phone calls at 3 am from a drunk Savage Love fans has to do with bigotry? Isn't it unethical to want to see opponents of domestic partner benefits harassed and terrorized? Opposing domestic partnership is a valid political opinion and any decent person would want to protect the safety and security of those who have expressed that opinion. The behavior of many activists who paint those on the other side as having no right to their opinions and beneath the protection of civilized society is rather fascist, isn't it?
It's very disturbing to me that those who don't fall into line and defend this harassment campaign are themselves called bigots.
Once again. Anybody. What does this have to do with bigotry?
67
Okay, so you've clearly abandoned any substantive argument in favor of an abstract appeal to ethical standards that don't actually apply to the situation under discussion. I acknowledge your surrender.
This question effectively reshapes the discussion into a non-argument by demanding accountability for things that haven't happened yet in the form of legal protections that never existed -- while simultaneously ignoring the protections that do exist. TPing peoples' houses, harassing phone calls, and all the other behaviors you've described are already illegal. The fact that those things might happen is unfortunate, but the laws currently in place reflect the magnitude of the harms inflicted by those wrongs.
First of all, I do want to protect the safety and security of those who have expressed that opinion. I fully support all existing laws designed to provide for their safety and security, and would strongly oppose any effort to exempt those people from the protection of the law. That said, the law does not protect the anonymity of people who sign referendum petitions. Not only does it not protect their anonymity, it expressly states that the signatures are not anonymous. So the standard of decency you're advocating here isn't a legal standard. You're talking about ethics and decency outside the law -- you're talking about morality.
And I guess now is as good a time as any to answer your disingenuous "what does this have to do with bigotry" refrain. The definition of a bigot is:
The referendum against the law extending domestic partnership benefits to homosexuals did not advance the political, economic, or social interests of any group in any material way; domestic partnerships for homosexuals cost non-homosexuals nothing and do not infringe on any right of non-homosexuals; acting against the interests of another with no corresponding benefit to one's own interests is, at least, a form of intolerance and, more likely, hatred. The fact that the interests being acted against in this case -- the right of people who love each other to some fraction of the legal benefits other loving couples enjoy -- is regarded by many to be a fundamental right makes the actions of those who signed the referendum particularly repugnant to any meaningful standard of decency or ethical regard for other human beings (since decency and ethics seem so important to you).
As far as that goes, opposing domestic partnerships is not a valid political opinion if, by "valid political opinion", you mean an opinion that is morally neutral. Opposing domestic partnerships is an act of bigotry, and if bigotry is wrong then opposing domestic partnerships is, in fact, an invalid political opinion. It is a political opinion I believe anyone should have the right to express, and if they express it in some forum where they have a reasonable expectation of anonymity (such as a voting booth) I believe their anonymity should be protected. But if they express that opinion by proposing legislation, in a forum that is expressly public, then they are not entitled to privacy simply because they are bigots and bigots draw more criticism than other people.
To put it another way, there's a reason members of the KKK wear hoods. But if one of those guys said that shit on the public record, I certainly wouldn't support a special judicial effort to redact his name just because he's a bigot and may therefore experience adverse consequences for expressing his hateful, intolerant opinions in public.
More...
Isn't it unethical to want to see opponents of domestic partner benefits harassed and terrorized?
Okay, so you've clearly abandoned any substantive argument in favor of an abstract appeal to ethical standards that don't actually apply to the situation under discussion. I acknowledge your surrender.
Can anyone tell me what the desire to prevent petition signers from getting their houses TP'ed or having harassing phone calls at 3 am from a drunk Savage Love fans has to do with bigotry?
This question effectively reshapes the discussion into a non-argument by demanding accountability for things that haven't happened yet in the form of legal protections that never existed -- while simultaneously ignoring the protections that do exist. TPing peoples' houses, harassing phone calls, and all the other behaviors you've described are already illegal. The fact that those things might happen is unfortunate, but the laws currently in place reflect the magnitude of the harms inflicted by those wrongs.
Opposing domestic partnership is a valid political opinion and any decent person would want to protect the safety and security of those who have expressed that opinion.
First of all, I do want to protect the safety and security of those who have expressed that opinion. I fully support all existing laws designed to provide for their safety and security, and would strongly oppose any effort to exempt those people from the protection of the law. That said, the law does not protect the anonymity of people who sign referendum petitions. Not only does it not protect their anonymity, it expressly states that the signatures are not anonymous. So the standard of decency you're advocating here isn't a legal standard. You're talking about ethics and decency outside the law -- you're talking about morality.
And I guess now is as good a time as any to answer your disingenuous "what does this have to do with bigotry" refrain. The definition of a bigot is:
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
The referendum against the law extending domestic partnership benefits to homosexuals did not advance the political, economic, or social interests of any group in any material way; domestic partnerships for homosexuals cost non-homosexuals nothing and do not infringe on any right of non-homosexuals; acting against the interests of another with no corresponding benefit to one's own interests is, at least, a form of intolerance and, more likely, hatred. The fact that the interests being acted against in this case -- the right of people who love each other to some fraction of the legal benefits other loving couples enjoy -- is regarded by many to be a fundamental right makes the actions of those who signed the referendum particularly repugnant to any meaningful standard of decency or ethical regard for other human beings (since decency and ethics seem so important to you).
As far as that goes, opposing domestic partnerships is not a valid political opinion if, by "valid political opinion", you mean an opinion that is morally neutral. Opposing domestic partnerships is an act of bigotry, and if bigotry is wrong then opposing domestic partnerships is, in fact, an invalid political opinion. It is a political opinion I believe anyone should have the right to express, and if they express it in some forum where they have a reasonable expectation of anonymity (such as a voting booth) I believe their anonymity should be protected. But if they express that opinion by proposing legislation, in a forum that is expressly public, then they are not entitled to privacy simply because they are bigots and bigots draw more criticism than other people.
To put it another way, there's a reason members of the KKK wear hoods. But if one of those guys said that shit on the public record, I certainly wouldn't support a special judicial effort to redact his name just because he's a bigot and may therefore experience adverse consequences for expressing his hateful, intolerant opinions in public.
68
Extending DP benefits does cost others.
Insurance, pension, etc etc.
In fact, tapping the various financial benefits currently extended to spouses is the whole point.
Insurance, pension, etc etc.
In fact, tapping the various financial benefits currently extended to spouses is the whole point.
69
I oppose Hate Crime laws that impose additional penalties against those who assault people expressing homosexual orientation.
First of all, I do want to protect the safety and security of those who have expressed that orientation and lifestyle. I fully support all existing laws designed to provide for their safety and security, and would strongly oppose any effort to exempt those people from the protection of the law. That said, the law does not protect the anonymity of people who express homosexual orientation and lifestyle.
First of all, I do want to protect the safety and security of those who have expressed that orientation and lifestyle. I fully support all existing laws designed to provide for their safety and security, and would strongly oppose any effort to exempt those people from the protection of the law. That said, the law does not protect the anonymity of people who express homosexual orientation and lifestyle.
70
To put it another way, there's a reason faggots stay in the closet. But if one of those guys wants to express that lifestyle in public, I certainly wouldn't support a special judicial effort to protect him just because he's a faggot and may therefore experience adverse consequences for expressing his perverted, deviant, disgusting lifestyle in public.
71
@68
Under that logic the thing to do would be to take away the benefits straight people enjoy. Limiting access to those benefits according to class -- race, religion, sex, sexual orientation -- would of course make benefits cheaper for those who still have them, but it denies those groups equal protection under the law. It doesn't really matter if the motive is ideological or economic.
That said, extending DP benefits to homosexuals doesn't cost the system at large any more than homosexuals already contribute. Assuming that 10% of all people are gay, then extending marriage benefits to gays increases benefits of marriage-related payments across the board by 10%. On the other hand, right now, gays who pay benefits make up 10% of payers; therefore 10% of marriage-related benefit payment are made by people who are, themselves, ineligible for benefits. So gays aren't asking for any kind of free ride; they're asking for their fair share of the benefits pool they help fund. This doesn't represent a loss to the majority except insofar as it represents a cessation of unfair gain. If that's why people signed the petition for R71, it may not be bigotry but I'd hardly call it ethical.
@69
Uh-huh. And?
Under that logic the thing to do would be to take away the benefits straight people enjoy. Limiting access to those benefits according to class -- race, religion, sex, sexual orientation -- would of course make benefits cheaper for those who still have them, but it denies those groups equal protection under the law. It doesn't really matter if the motive is ideological or economic.
That said, extending DP benefits to homosexuals doesn't cost the system at large any more than homosexuals already contribute. Assuming that 10% of all people are gay, then extending marriage benefits to gays increases benefits of marriage-related payments across the board by 10%. On the other hand, right now, gays who pay benefits make up 10% of payers; therefore 10% of marriage-related benefit payment are made by people who are, themselves, ineligible for benefits. So gays aren't asking for any kind of free ride; they're asking for their fair share of the benefits pool they help fund. This doesn't represent a loss to the majority except insofar as it represents a cessation of unfair gain. If that's why people signed the petition for R71, it may not be bigotry but I'd hardly call it ethical.
@69
Uh-huh. And?
72
There's one of your allies in this argument elenchos, @70. Nice group of folks you're defending.
And @70
I say again last: Uh-huh. And?
And @70
I say again last: Uh-huh. And?
73
@71
In 67 You said: "...domestic partnerships for homosexuals cost non-homosexuals nothing" and then accuse opponents of HATRED; "acting against the interests of another with no corresponding benefit to one's own interests is, at least, a form of intolerance and, more likely, hatred."
You are factually wrong.
If the cost of all benefits associated with marriage/domestic partnership is X and then you add 10% more people by extending DP to homosexuals you increase the cost to everyone by 10%. (Or reduce the available resources to the pool of people already receiving them by 9% if no additional revenues are raised) It doesn't matter that homosexuals are already paying- single people pay, widowers pay, divorced people pay- lots of people other than homosexuals already pay and don't receive benefits.
Let's get back to your assertion; "domestic partnerships for homosexuals cost non-homosexuals nothing"- and edit it for accuracy- "domestic partnerships for homosexuals cost non-homosexuals an additional 10%..."
The same applies to extending benefits to unmarried elderly couples.
There is a sound financial reason people may oppose extending benefits to a whole new class(es) of people.
Reasons that have nothing to do with HATE.
Your narrowmindedness leaves you unwilling/unable to recognize the just concerns of those who have an opinion different from yours.
Name calling is a poor substitute for reasoned discussion.
In 67 You said: "...domestic partnerships for homosexuals cost non-homosexuals nothing" and then accuse opponents of HATRED; "acting against the interests of another with no corresponding benefit to one's own interests is, at least, a form of intolerance and, more likely, hatred."
You are factually wrong.
If the cost of all benefits associated with marriage/domestic partnership is X and then you add 10% more people by extending DP to homosexuals you increase the cost to everyone by 10%. (Or reduce the available resources to the pool of people already receiving them by 9% if no additional revenues are raised) It doesn't matter that homosexuals are already paying- single people pay, widowers pay, divorced people pay- lots of people other than homosexuals already pay and don't receive benefits.
Let's get back to your assertion; "domestic partnerships for homosexuals cost non-homosexuals nothing"- and edit it for accuracy- "domestic partnerships for homosexuals cost non-homosexuals an additional 10%..."
The same applies to extending benefits to unmarried elderly couples.
There is a sound financial reason people may oppose extending benefits to a whole new class(es) of people.
Reasons that have nothing to do with HATE.
Your narrowmindedness leaves you unwilling/unable to recognize the just concerns of those who have an opinion different from yours.
Name calling is a poor substitute for reasoned discussion.
74
71
72
Judas is placing your exact words and arguments in the mouth of a hypothetical homophobic bigot explaining his opposition to hate crime laws.
'Judas' is YOUR ally in this argument, in fact he is your twin.
Nice group of folks you're mimicking.
72
Judas is placing your exact words and arguments in the mouth of a hypothetical homophobic bigot explaining his opposition to hate crime laws.
'Judas' is YOUR ally in this argument, in fact he is your twin.
Nice group of folks you're mimicking.
75
oooh!
Judas has another one:
"Judas" doesn't think there should be hate crime laws punishing people who assault or kill homosexuals because they are homosexuals because; in the exact words of his good buddy Judah;
these laws "demand accountability for things that haven't happened yet in the form of legal protections that never existed -- while simultaneously ignoring the protections that do exist. Beating, Torturing and Killing Homosexuals, and all the other behaviors you've described are already illegal. The fact that those things might happen is unfortunate, but the laws currently in place reflect the magnitude of the harms inflicted by those wrongs."
Judas has another one:
"Judas" doesn't think there should be hate crime laws punishing people who assault or kill homosexuals because they are homosexuals because; in the exact words of his good buddy Judah;
these laws "demand accountability for things that haven't happened yet in the form of legal protections that never existed -- while simultaneously ignoring the protections that do exist. Beating, Torturing and Killing Homosexuals, and all the other behaviors you've described are already illegal. The fact that those things might happen is unfortunate, but the laws currently in place reflect the magnitude of the harms inflicted by those wrongs."
76
@73
So, just to be clear, your position here is that some significant number of people who signed the petition for R71 did so because they're concerned that it will raise insurance costs. Is that your actual opinion?
@74 & 75
Yeah, I got what you were going for there, Voltaire. Thanks for the tip though.
And again, elenchos, cool friends you've got there.
So, just to be clear, your position here is that some significant number of people who signed the petition for R71 did so because they're concerned that it will raise insurance costs. Is that your actual opinion?
@74 & 75
Yeah, I got what you were going for there, Voltaire. Thanks for the tip though.
And again, elenchos, cool friends you've got there.
77
@76
Okay, so you've clearly abandoned your erroneous fallacious specious argument that domestic partnerships for homosexuals cost non-homosexuals nothing in favor of changing the subject.
I acknowledge your surrender.
Okay, so you've clearly abandoned your erroneous fallacious specious argument that domestic partnerships for homosexuals cost non-homosexuals nothing in favor of changing the subject.
I acknowledge your surrender.
79
Judah, if you think you can goad me into unblocking registered comments, you can forget it. I don't read that shit.
The idea that you think I have to take responsibility for what some unregistered commenter says tells me a lot about you. It suggests a poverty of sound arguments, and that faced with an inability to frame a rational justification for you position, you're content to slide into ad homeniem.
The claim that the other side of this debate has no right to their political opinion tells us even more about you. Your self-righteousness has inflated into megalomania. You've become so deluded that you've forgotten how many times, after courts have expanded rights for gays, voters have amended their constitutions to take those rights away again. The lesson you failed to learn is that democracy still matters, and you need to persuade a majority. You can't just sit back and wait for the right judges to give you the rulings you like and expect that to be the end of it.
And so if you do ever grow up and realize you need to win people over to your side, you would then possibly figure out that demonizing them is a losing tactic. I've been kind of wondering why Obama has done so little for gays, but I'm beginning to realize that there just aren't enough smart people leading the gay community. If there is nobody he can work with, why waste time trying? Better to focus on causes that have a chance of success while the gays get their act together.
The idea that you think I have to take responsibility for what some unregistered commenter says tells me a lot about you. It suggests a poverty of sound arguments, and that faced with an inability to frame a rational justification for you position, you're content to slide into ad homeniem.
The claim that the other side of this debate has no right to their political opinion tells us even more about you. Your self-righteousness has inflated into megalomania. You've become so deluded that you've forgotten how many times, after courts have expanded rights for gays, voters have amended their constitutions to take those rights away again. The lesson you failed to learn is that democracy still matters, and you need to persuade a majority. You can't just sit back and wait for the right judges to give you the rulings you like and expect that to be the end of it.
And so if you do ever grow up and realize you need to win people over to your side, you would then possibly figure out that demonizing them is a losing tactic. I've been kind of wondering why Obama has done so little for gays, but I'm beginning to realize that there just aren't enough smart people leading the gay community. If there is nobody he can work with, why waste time trying? Better to focus on causes that have a chance of success while the gays get their act together.
80
@79
You say, "...you're content to slide into ad homeniem [sic]."
Do you actually know what an ad hominem argument is? Here's a definition from wikipedia:
So, let's review: I've cited the Washington State constitution, Washington State Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and the U.S. Constitution, and quoted dictionary definitions of relevant terms. You have yet to cite a single legal authority, and your posts are full of little gems like this:
I've boldfaced the an hominem attacks for you. And those are just the ones in that paragraph. You've been lobbing bombs like that since I got involved in this discussion.
Meanwhile, you're arguing with shit I never said, often by making points that don't apply. For example, above you say that I claimed "the other side" has no right to their political opinion. Could you please quote the part of my argument where I said that? I doubt it because, as far as I can remember, I never said it. What I said was that opposition to domestic partner benefits does not constitute a valid political opinion if by "valid political opinion" you mean "morally neutral." See that word, "if"? That's makes it a conditional statement. I was challenging a specific point that you made by positing a logical sequence in which it would be false. However, if you did not mean, "morally neutral" then opposition to DP benefits may still be a "valid political opinion" (whatever the fuck that means). In any event, I went on to say that, even if it were not a "valid political opinion", I still support an individual's right to express it, and to express it anonymously if they do so in an appropriate forum. So which part of that constitutes denying "the other side" a right to their political opinion? Be specific.
I didn't demonize them: I quoted the dictionary definition of the word "bigot" and applied it to the situation under discussion -- after your fervent and repeated requests for such an explanation. If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear which parts you disagree with and why. Short of that, you're totally misconstruing my argument.
Yes, I'm sure that must be it.
More...
You say, "...you're content to slide into ad homeniem [sic]."
Do you actually know what an ad hominem argument is? Here's a definition from wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
So, let's review: I've cited the Washington State constitution, Washington State Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and the U.S. Constitution, and quoted dictionary definitions of relevant terms. You have yet to cite a single legal authority, and your posts are full of little gems like this:
The claim that the other side of this debate has no right to their political opinion tells us even more about you. Your self-righteousness has inflated into megalomania. You've become so deluded that you've forgotten ...The lesson you failed to learn...
I've boldfaced the an hominem attacks for you. And those are just the ones in that paragraph. You've been lobbing bombs like that since I got involved in this discussion.
Meanwhile, you're arguing with shit I never said, often by making points that don't apply. For example, above you say that I claimed "the other side" has no right to their political opinion. Could you please quote the part of my argument where I said that? I doubt it because, as far as I can remember, I never said it. What I said was that opposition to domestic partner benefits does not constitute a valid political opinion if by "valid political opinion" you mean "morally neutral." See that word, "if"? That's makes it a conditional statement. I was challenging a specific point that you made by positing a logical sequence in which it would be false. However, if you did not mean, "morally neutral" then opposition to DP benefits may still be a "valid political opinion" (whatever the fuck that means). In any event, I went on to say that, even if it were not a "valid political opinion", I still support an individual's right to express it, and to express it anonymously if they do so in an appropriate forum. So which part of that constitutes denying "the other side" a right to their political opinion? Be specific.
And so if you do ever grow up and realize you need to win people over to your side, you would then possibly figure out that demonizing them is a losing tactic.
I didn't demonize them: I quoted the dictionary definition of the word "bigot" and applied it to the situation under discussion -- after your fervent and repeated requests for such an explanation. If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear which parts you disagree with and why. Short of that, you're totally misconstruing my argument.
I've been kind of wondering why Obama has done so little for gays, but I'm beginning to realize that there just aren't enough smart people leading the gay community.
Yes, I'm sure that must be it.
81
And just by the way,
a) how would I know what you have blocked?
b) why in holy hell would I care enough to try to "goad" you into changing it?
Judah, if you think you can goad me into unblocking registered comments, you can forget it. I don't read that shit.
a) how would I know what you have blocked?
b) why in holy hell would I care enough to try to "goad" you into changing it?
82
Judah et al ...
You fail to see the giant privacy issue in the age of the ruthless data banks and world wide eternal access. It is a backdrop for this issue.
In a former era a scant 20 years ago or less, dusty records were at the courthouses and other places, called "public." You could get information by taking notes, pad and pencil, if they let you see the stuff. No copies, and access with a lot of strings.
Today, because of Google and tons of other data collectors, who and why and where-unknown - no limits exist at all. Nations such as France and England and Germany are concerned for personal privacy due to pix of neighborhoods, maps, etc. - all posted forever online and open to any use any body on the planet, unfettered by any restraint of any law.
There is the issue of intimidation and possible fear. But that is not the only issue.
Also, a federal court, esp. the U S Supreme, could give a shit about state contextual stuff. For them, who cares about the ins and outs of Washington constitutional phrases or RCWs. We are close to the contest which has ignited this discussion - they will not give one whit to all that. It is not their role or problem to worry about Washington's permutations. Bill of rights front and center, political free speech on the table.
And all this swings on the will they or won' they - take the case.
Stay tuned.
You fail to see the giant privacy issue in the age of the ruthless data banks and world wide eternal access. It is a backdrop for this issue.
In a former era a scant 20 years ago or less, dusty records were at the courthouses and other places, called "public." You could get information by taking notes, pad and pencil, if they let you see the stuff. No copies, and access with a lot of strings.
Today, because of Google and tons of other data collectors, who and why and where-unknown - no limits exist at all. Nations such as France and England and Germany are concerned for personal privacy due to pix of neighborhoods, maps, etc. - all posted forever online and open to any use any body on the planet, unfettered by any restraint of any law.
There is the issue of intimidation and possible fear. But that is not the only issue.
Also, a federal court, esp. the U S Supreme, could give a shit about state contextual stuff. For them, who cares about the ins and outs of Washington constitutional phrases or RCWs. We are close to the contest which has ignited this discussion - they will not give one whit to all that. It is not their role or problem to worry about Washington's permutations. Bill of rights front and center, political free speech on the table.
And all this swings on the will they or won' they - take the case.
Stay tuned.
83
Still, in spite of the smokescreen and distractions, there is no argument as a basis for publishing the names and addresses. Voters make law by voting in a plebiscite. That vote is secret. But for some reason when voter make law by signing a petition, that secrecy is withheld? Why?
Because in this one particular case, some people on one side were bigots. Which is insane. There you have it.
And then there is the glaringly obvious fact that there is no decent use for publishing the list of names. It serves no good, and will only used to cause mayhem. So we have no theoretical support, and in practical terms, no upside; only a downside.
And thinking in even more realistic turns, what happens when some drunk Capitol Hill scenester shows up in Kent on a Christian fundie's front yard with a burning bag of shit or a case of toilet paper? Joe Bible is going to blow his head off with the shotgun he keeps always at the ready by his front door. And the ideologue assholes who set that in motion will wash their hands of it and say what a shame.
Because in this one particular case, some people on one side were bigots. Which is insane. There you have it.
And then there is the glaringly obvious fact that there is no decent use for publishing the list of names. It serves no good, and will only used to cause mayhem. So we have no theoretical support, and in practical terms, no upside; only a downside.
And thinking in even more realistic turns, what happens when some drunk Capitol Hill scenester shows up in Kent on a Christian fundie's front yard with a burning bag of shit or a case of toilet paper? Joe Bible is going to blow his head off with the shotgun he keeps always at the ready by his front door. And the ideologue assholes who set that in motion will wash their hands of it and say what a shame.
84
@83
That's completely inaccurate.
1) In the United States, voters generally vote to elect representatives, and the representatives make law. That's the republican form of government. It's how our federal government works, and it's also how all of our state governments are supposed to work, per Article I, §4, cl. 4 of the federal constitution.
2) The term plebiscite is vague, at best, and you're kind of misapplying it here.
3) In Washington State, we have an initiative/referendum process. This allows some voters, under certain circumstances, to propose legislation, or propose a rejection of existing legislation, and put that proposal up for a popular vote. The legislature may also propose a law to the voters for approval. In either case, the act of proposing the legislation on the ballot is not an act of the voters; it is a function of the legislative power of the state; it is an exercise of the power of the state government, not the power of the plebiscite. To put it another way, under certain circumstances, the state legislature lends its power to the people; when voters sign a petition, they are evoking the power of the state, not the power of the people. Procedural conditions may be placed on access to the power of the state (including the disclosure of the petitions) in order to maintain accountability, that would not be appropriate for simply exercising the right to vote.
4) Secrecy is not being withheld; and it is certainly not being withheld because of who the parties in this case are. The petition documents are and always have been a matter of public record. If someone writes their name on a wall, refusing to have the state draw a curtain over the wall does not amount to withholding anything.
5) Because the initiative/referendum process is an exercise of state power, the people have an interest in keeping the initiative/referendum process transparent; this includes the ability to confirm that 1) there are enough signatures and 2) the signatures are valid, and to complete this confirmation without resort to officers of the state who may have an interest in the outcome. This is why the law -- well before the current mess -- classified the petition documents as being on the public record. This interest transcends the particulars of the controversy around R71; if Tim Eyman proposes a law requiring the suspension of all state taxes, the people of the state have an interest in confirming the signatures on the petition even before the thing comes up for a vote -- and our existing state law reflects that interest. The fact that R71 has come and gone does not affect the importance of the issue which is now raised before the Supreme Court, any more than Roe v. Wade became a non-issue when Roe had her baby. And that has nothing to do with whether some of the people who signed the referendum were bigots.
6) That said, several key members of this Court have historically demonstrated themselves to be raging bigots, particularly as regards the question of gay rights, even to the extent of issuing holdings on gay rights questions that run strongly against existing Court doctrine on other related issues. Additionally, there is a question of the integrity of our local political process -- the people of Washington have our own system of government, and have structured it as we see fit. Generally speaking, the state supreme court is the final arbiter of questions of state constitutional law; federal courts only have jurisdiction where a state constitution violates the federal constitution. So the idea of the Supreme Court declaring the workings of our initiative process unconstitutional and totally unbalancing our local legal process because some of them are great big homophobes is distressing.
See above at 5).
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Also, it's an appalling stereotype.
More...
Voters make law by voting in a plebiscite. That vote is secret. But for some reason when voter make law by signing a petition, that secrecy is withheld? Why? Because in this one particular case, some people on one side were bigots.
That's completely inaccurate.
1) In the United States, voters generally vote to elect representatives, and the representatives make law. That's the republican form of government. It's how our federal government works, and it's also how all of our state governments are supposed to work, per Article I, §4, cl. 4 of the federal constitution.
2) The term plebiscite is vague, at best, and you're kind of misapplying it here.
3) In Washington State, we have an initiative/referendum process. This allows some voters, under certain circumstances, to propose legislation, or propose a rejection of existing legislation, and put that proposal up for a popular vote. The legislature may also propose a law to the voters for approval. In either case, the act of proposing the legislation on the ballot is not an act of the voters; it is a function of the legislative power of the state; it is an exercise of the power of the state government, not the power of the plebiscite. To put it another way, under certain circumstances, the state legislature lends its power to the people; when voters sign a petition, they are evoking the power of the state, not the power of the people. Procedural conditions may be placed on access to the power of the state (including the disclosure of the petitions) in order to maintain accountability, that would not be appropriate for simply exercising the right to vote.
4) Secrecy is not being withheld; and it is certainly not being withheld because of who the parties in this case are. The petition documents are and always have been a matter of public record. If someone writes their name on a wall, refusing to have the state draw a curtain over the wall does not amount to withholding anything.
5) Because the initiative/referendum process is an exercise of state power, the people have an interest in keeping the initiative/referendum process transparent; this includes the ability to confirm that 1) there are enough signatures and 2) the signatures are valid, and to complete this confirmation without resort to officers of the state who may have an interest in the outcome. This is why the law -- well before the current mess -- classified the petition documents as being on the public record. This interest transcends the particulars of the controversy around R71; if Tim Eyman proposes a law requiring the suspension of all state taxes, the people of the state have an interest in confirming the signatures on the petition even before the thing comes up for a vote -- and our existing state law reflects that interest. The fact that R71 has come and gone does not affect the importance of the issue which is now raised before the Supreme Court, any more than Roe v. Wade became a non-issue when Roe had her baby. And that has nothing to do with whether some of the people who signed the referendum were bigots.
6) That said, several key members of this Court have historically demonstrated themselves to be raging bigots, particularly as regards the question of gay rights, even to the extent of issuing holdings on gay rights questions that run strongly against existing Court doctrine on other related issues. Additionally, there is a question of the integrity of our local political process -- the people of Washington have our own system of government, and have structured it as we see fit. Generally speaking, the state supreme court is the final arbiter of questions of state constitutional law; federal courts only have jurisdiction where a state constitution violates the federal constitution. So the idea of the Supreme Court declaring the workings of our initiative process unconstitutional and totally unbalancing our local legal process because some of them are great big homophobes is distressing.
And then there is the glaringly obvious ...[snip]... only a downside.
See above at 5).
And thinking in even more realistic turns...[snip] say what a shame.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Also, it's an appalling stereotype.
85
"To put it another way, under certain circumstances, the state legislature lends its power to the people; when voters sign a petition, they are evoking the power of the state, not the power of the people."
You have it backwards.
The "power" resides with the people.
They authorize their elected officials to exercise it in their name, under tight restrictions.
The people reserve the right to exercise power directly, through the petition process.
Leave it to a Liberal to assume the people work for the government, instead of the other way around.
You have it backwards.
The "power" resides with the people.
They authorize their elected officials to exercise it in their name, under tight restrictions.
The people reserve the right to exercise power directly, through the petition process.
Leave it to a Liberal to assume the people work for the government, instead of the other way around.
86
"So the idea of the Supreme Court declaring the workings of our initiative process unconstitutional and totally unbalancing our local legal process because some of them are great big homophobes is distressing."
States' Rights!
Hell Yeah!!
That's just what Southern Bigots thought when the Courts struck down their Poll Taxes and Literacy Requirements and Voter ID laws designed to keep Blacks from voting.
Making your local procedures conform the the Constitution is a bitch sometimes...
States' Rights!
Hell Yeah!!
That's just what Southern Bigots thought when the Courts struck down their Poll Taxes and Literacy Requirements and Voter ID laws designed to keep Blacks from voting.
Making your local procedures conform the the Constitution is a bitch sometimes...
87
"the people have an interest in keeping the initiative/referendum process transparent; this includes the ability to confirm that 1) there are enough signatures and 2) the signatures are valid, and to complete this confirmation WITHOUT RESORT TO OFFICERS OF THE STATE who may have an interest in the outcome."
Are you insane?
The state certifies the signatures before they are made public.
Who would you have certify the signatures?
The people who collected them?
Their opponents?
If the NAACP supports a petition drive will you bring in the KKK to certify the signatures?
If you don't trust state officials to do their job perhaps you have your tinfoil antenae hat on a little too tight.
Are you insane?
The state certifies the signatures before they are made public.
Who would you have certify the signatures?
The people who collected them?
Their opponents?
If the NAACP supports a petition drive will you bring in the KKK to certify the signatures?
If you don't trust state officials to do their job perhaps you have your tinfoil antenae hat on a little too tight.
88
@85
Yeah, except the Washington State Supreme court disagrees with you. Sorry.
Where'd I say that, exactly?
@86
Yes, I'm given to understand that Southern bigots also used vowels. By all means, let's get rid of those as well.
@87
Sigh.
The people reserve the right to exercise power directly, through the petition process.
Yeah, except the Washington State Supreme court disagrees with you. Sorry.
Leave it to a Liberal to assume the people work for the government, instead of the other way around.
Where'd I say that, exactly?
@86
That's just what Southern Bigots thought when the Courts struck down their Poll Taxes and Literacy Requirements and Voter ID laws designed to keep Blacks from voting.
Yes, I'm given to understand that Southern bigots also used vowels. By all means, let's get rid of those as well.
@87
If you don't trust state officials to do their job perhaps you have your tinfoil antenae hat on a little too tight.
Sigh.
89
Why is signing a petition to put something on a ballot an exercise of state power but voting on that same issue in the election not? Shouldn't the way each Washington voter fills out their ballot also be published, along with their address?
After all, every single interest that supposedly exists for the public to know who signed applies just as well to knowing who voted and how. Seems to me if the public only knows who signed but not who voted yes, they're only getting half the picture and this information is vital, isn't it? And don't you also want a list of who voted for Susan Hutchinson? How can civil society function not knowing?
I wouldn't be surprised to see liberals on the Supreme Court voting to keep the names out of the hands of these fanatics. Unless somebody gives the court a comprehensible, sensible reason to release them. One that doesn't involve turning logic and common sense right on its head.
After all, every single interest that supposedly exists for the public to know who signed applies just as well to knowing who voted and how. Seems to me if the public only knows who signed but not who voted yes, they're only getting half the picture and this information is vital, isn't it? And don't you also want a list of who voted for Susan Hutchinson? How can civil society function not knowing?
I wouldn't be surprised to see liberals on the Supreme Court voting to keep the names out of the hands of these fanatics. Unless somebody gives the court a comprehensible, sensible reason to release them. One that doesn't involve turning logic and common sense right on its head.
90
Because that's the law. It's in statute, and it's how the state supreme court has interpreted the state constitution. You wanna change the law? Write an initiative. Run for the state legislature. Write your state representatives. But for fuck's sake, stop acting like this is just some arbitrary attempt on the part of rabble-rousing gays to persecute their political opponents. The statute was in place before all this went down.
Jesus Christ. Passing over that little dig about the fanatics (do we need to go over the definition of ad hominem attack again?) the comprehensible, sensible reason is that they're a matter of public record. Should someone do a motive check every time anyone requests access to a public record? Short answer: no.
Keep going though. You're wearing me down. Even I -- who will generally follow an argument down to its last dying breath -- am losing interest in this fucking conversation.
Why is signing a petition to put something on a ballot an exercise of state power but voting on that same issue in the election not?
Because that's the law. It's in statute, and it's how the state supreme court has interpreted the state constitution. You wanna change the law? Write an initiative. Run for the state legislature. Write your state representatives. But for fuck's sake, stop acting like this is just some arbitrary attempt on the part of rabble-rousing gays to persecute their political opponents. The statute was in place before all this went down.
I wouldn't be surprised to see... [blah blah blah] on its head
Jesus Christ. Passing over that little dig about the fanatics (do we need to go over the definition of ad hominem attack again?) the comprehensible, sensible reason is that they're a matter of public record. Should someone do a motive check every time anyone requests access to a public record? Short answer: no.
Keep going though. You're wearing me down. Even I -- who will generally follow an argument down to its last dying breath -- am losing interest in this fucking conversation.
91
#90 - Judah, nice game, no weight.
Yeah - you have so far, made no case.
Do you really get this is the US
Supreme court, with all the majesty and total juristiction in ALL matters, to the smallest nuanace, that might assign to the
Bill of Rights mandated by the FEDERAL Constitution? Political free speech, the strongest right in the Bill of Rights.... most scholars would agree.
What po dunk Wash. had done legislating/policy wise about the issue is possibly under full review - and they will have no fear to strike cause we think we did whatever acting with some premise of good intentions.
There might be history in the making in all the initiative and referendum states - stay tuned.
Or, as a friend pointed out, it could be very narrow. Nine minds to survey here.
Yeah - you have so far, made no case.
Do you really get this is the US
Supreme court, with all the majesty and total juristiction in ALL matters, to the smallest nuanace, that might assign to the
Bill of Rights mandated by the FEDERAL Constitution? Political free speech, the strongest right in the Bill of Rights.... most scholars would agree.
What po dunk Wash. had done legislating/policy wise about the issue is possibly under full review - and they will have no fear to strike cause we think we did whatever acting with some premise of good intentions.
There might be history in the making in all the initiative and referendum states - stay tuned.
Or, as a friend pointed out, it could be very narrow. Nine minds to survey here.
92
Votes are a matter of public record too. Why are votes secret but petitions not? Because it's the law?
No, because it's a law. A law that could very well be struck down by the high court. It likely will be struck down unless somebody thinks up a reason that doesn't beg the question, or require us to publish everyone's ballot box choices too.
No, because it's a law. A law that could very well be struck down by the high court. It likely will be struck down unless somebody thinks up a reason that doesn't beg the question, or require us to publish everyone's ballot box choices too.
93
The law and a law are the same thing.
It only begs that question if you're pretending that legislating and voting are the same thing. They aren't. The state constitution and the state supreme court held that they aren't well before this issue came up, and a state statute supported that approach.
And nobody would have cared one way or another about those decisions if some ignorant people hadn't tried to use the power of the government to enforce their personal prejudices against an oppressed minority. When they realized they might have to take public responsibility for their attempt to use government power to deprive others of their civil rights, they panicked and tried to change the game.
And here's the thing -- there's probably a legal argument to support their views, and I might even agree with it. Maybe when the SCOTUS opinion comes out it'll strike down our law and I'll read it and think, "Huh, good point. I'm convinced." But you haven't made any arguments based on law -- you're making arguments based on sophistical moral pronouncements, without addressing any of the actual mechanical legal issues involved. And whenever anyone brings that stuff up, you declare it's irrelevant because it doesn't meet your personal standard of fairness. It's like declaring really stridently that SCOTUS justices should be elected -- because all the other branches elect their members -- and then screaming about double standards when people tell you it's a bad idea. The SCOTUS isn't the same as other branches of government. Voting isn't the same as signing a petition. There are reasons for that. You haven't got a good answer for any of those reasons, except that you don't understand them.
More...
It likely will be struck down unless somebody thinks up a reason that doesn't beg the question, or require us to publish everyone's ballot box choices too.
The law and a law are the same thing.
It only begs that question if you're pretending that legislating and voting are the same thing. They aren't. The state constitution and the state supreme court held that they aren't well before this issue came up, and a state statute supported that approach.
And nobody would have cared one way or another about those decisions if some ignorant people hadn't tried to use the power of the government to enforce their personal prejudices against an oppressed minority. When they realized they might have to take public responsibility for their attempt to use government power to deprive others of their civil rights, they panicked and tried to change the game.
And here's the thing -- there's probably a legal argument to support their views, and I might even agree with it. Maybe when the SCOTUS opinion comes out it'll strike down our law and I'll read it and think, "Huh, good point. I'm convinced." But you haven't made any arguments based on law -- you're making arguments based on sophistical moral pronouncements, without addressing any of the actual mechanical legal issues involved. And whenever anyone brings that stuff up, you declare it's irrelevant because it doesn't meet your personal standard of fairness. It's like declaring really stridently that SCOTUS justices should be elected -- because all the other branches elect their members -- and then screaming about double standards when people tell you it's a bad idea. The SCOTUS isn't the same as other branches of government. Voting isn't the same as signing a petition. There are reasons for that. You haven't got a good answer for any of those reasons, except that you don't understand them.
94
Voters aren't answerable to anyone but themselves. Representatives are answerable to their constituents. When a citizen votes, that's between the voter and nobody else.
Signing a petition is no different, even if it is a petition to make law. Voters vote to make and repeal laws all the time. Voters participate in the legislative process both at the ballot box and when petitioning to have something put on the ballot. It makes no sense to say that a vote to create or repeal a law at the ballot box must be secret, but a petition is totally different. If anything, the final vote is far more important. Don't you want the names and addresses of everyone who voted yes?
And what about a petition to recall an elected official? That is not making law; that is a part of the representative process that is the other function of voting. Are you saying that recall petitions should be secret because they aren't legislative?
The threat against individuals if their votes and petitions become public is real. They can be fired, lose their homes, be mistreated by their families, and be harassed by strangers. It's obtuse to pretend that the police can protect everyone from every kind of retribution they could suffer. And even the fear of retribution is enough to taint the process. That is unacceptable.
A democracy needs to know what citizens actually want, not merely what they are unafraid to say under scrutiny from those who have power over them. This principle is clear. To say it's different when it involves making law is an irrelevant distinction.
Technology has made the ability to harass people much easier. In the past, you could not quickly run the names of every job applicant through a database, completely anonymously with no proof it ever happened. Employers simply don't call applicants who singed a petition they oppose, and who's the wiser? The most obvious issues are pot, assisted suicide, and domestic partnership or marriage, but it could be any issue a company or just some manager has strong opinions about.
The same technology makes it much easier to verify that petitioners are legitimate, without having to toss the names out there and hope maybe some activist will turn up something. If you can positively verify the signatures without having to publish them, and publishing them is virtually certain to discourage at least some petitioners, why do it? Because the state is too cheap to spend the money and wants to exploit the zeal of activists to do its job? No dice. It's the state's responsibility first.
There is no unique benefit to publishing petitioner names and addresses, and the harm is well understood.
More...
Signing a petition is no different, even if it is a petition to make law. Voters vote to make and repeal laws all the time. Voters participate in the legislative process both at the ballot box and when petitioning to have something put on the ballot. It makes no sense to say that a vote to create or repeal a law at the ballot box must be secret, but a petition is totally different. If anything, the final vote is far more important. Don't you want the names and addresses of everyone who voted yes?
And what about a petition to recall an elected official? That is not making law; that is a part of the representative process that is the other function of voting. Are you saying that recall petitions should be secret because they aren't legislative?
The threat against individuals if their votes and petitions become public is real. They can be fired, lose their homes, be mistreated by their families, and be harassed by strangers. It's obtuse to pretend that the police can protect everyone from every kind of retribution they could suffer. And even the fear of retribution is enough to taint the process. That is unacceptable.
A democracy needs to know what citizens actually want, not merely what they are unafraid to say under scrutiny from those who have power over them. This principle is clear. To say it's different when it involves making law is an irrelevant distinction.
Technology has made the ability to harass people much easier. In the past, you could not quickly run the names of every job applicant through a database, completely anonymously with no proof it ever happened. Employers simply don't call applicants who singed a petition they oppose, and who's the wiser? The most obvious issues are pot, assisted suicide, and domestic partnership or marriage, but it could be any issue a company or just some manager has strong opinions about.
The same technology makes it much easier to verify that petitioners are legitimate, without having to toss the names out there and hope maybe some activist will turn up something. If you can positively verify the signatures without having to publish them, and publishing them is virtually certain to discourage at least some petitioners, why do it? Because the state is too cheap to spend the money and wants to exploit the zeal of activists to do its job? No dice. It's the state's responsibility first.
There is no unique benefit to publishing petitioner names and addresses, and the harm is well understood.
95
Well hey, look at that. A mostly nicely laid out argument.
Look, I think we can both agree that, generally, a state law is valid and active unless it offends either the state or the federal constitution, or is preempted by a federal law. We have a state law that the petition records are a matter of public record. Short of repealing the law, the only way it can be struck down or rendered inoperative is if the state or federal courts find it repugnant to one of the three authorities I just mentioned.
The current case is being brought in federal court, on federal constitutional grounds. It's not being brought on the issue you're talking about -- it's not being brought on a "secret ballot" issue. It's being brought on a First Amendment free speech issue. Historically, these are different things, because the right to a secret ballot is not currently a federal right, in the sense of a voting right. This is because the Supreme Court of the U.S. has consistently ruled that the power to regulate elections is a state power, not a federal one. The Court has ruled on this as recently as last June: "State autonomy with respect to the machinery of self-government defines the States as sovereign entities rather than mere provincial outposts subject to every dictate of a central governing authority ...the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections..."
So the plaintiffs in this case are attempting to strike the Washington law based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The argument here is basically that the First Amendment guarantees secret ballots -- or secret petition signatures -- because otherwise people would be too afraid to cast controversial votes.
Probably the most obvious argument against this position is that no American state required the use of secret ballots until 1888. So there was a 97 year period between the adoption of the First Amendment and the first secret ballot in this country, during which time we presumably had something resembling a functioning democracy. One can counter that one, because the First Amendment didn't apply to the actions of individual states until 1925, but that starts to lead into some weird territory; the First Amendment still doesn't apply to states directly. It is used as part of the definition of "due process" under the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to states. But the Due Process Clause only applies to state governments. It doesn't apply to the actions of private citizens, so the actions of the political groups opposed to the R71 petition aren't really within the brief of the statute. And sort of on and on like that.
In any event, the public disclosure law we're debating has been in place since 1913 -- just two years after the initiative/referendum process itself was put in place. So it's not exactly new. And while I actually agree that, as a point of principle, votes should probably be secret, I'm pretty clear that A) the petitioners had no reasonable expectation that their names would be secret; B) I can think of a lot of good reasons to maintain the distinction between voting and signing a petition; C) SCOTUS would be engaging in a significant expansion of federal power if they got involved in this; and D) striking down this law would fundamentally alter the way the initiative/referendum process has functioned in this state pretty much since its inception.
Sorry, no. The Washington State constitution provides for secret ballots for elections. It does not provide for secrecy in signing petitions, even though the initiative process is described int he constitution. So, legally, they're different. Also, the federal Constitution contains several specific provisions regarding the right to vote but, so far, not one regarding initiatives or referendums. So they are, in fact, legally different.
You're focusing on (totally speculative) consequences, but not on the actions that may lead to them; all of the things you're describing can happen to someone who donates money to a political campaign. Is the right to donate money to a political campaign important to the integrity of our political process? Obviously. And yet, anyone who wants to can look up who contributed to Protect Marriage Washington, the PAC behind R71. Should we make the PAC disclosure documents private too?
The nature of the action matters -- not just what it does and what can happen as a result of it, but how it fits into the process as a whole. The political power being regulated by the public disclosure law is not the same political power that is exercised in simply voting in a republican form of government. The initiative/referendum process gives Washington voters considerably more power than is generally contemplated in the right to vote. In fact, the framers of the federal Constitution specifically avoided it because they thought it was too dangerous to be handed over to the general public. Washington State steps outside the political mainstream by offering this power to its voters -- but that additional power comes with additional accountability.
Okay, well, there's another one of those ad hominem attacks you supposedly disdain, but whatever. The law isn't designed to protect everyone from every kind of retribution they could suffer. The law is designed to draw boundaries around types of behavior, and it does that pretty well. And as far as "even the fear of retribution" being enough to "taint the process" -- all I can say is that we differ on that question. There are different kinds of fear, different kinds of retribution, and different ways of tainting the process. Again, the particulars matter.
More...
Voters aren't answerable to anyone but themselves. Representatives are answerable to their constituents. When a citizen votes, that's between the voter and nobody else.
Look, I think we can both agree that, generally, a state law is valid and active unless it offends either the state or the federal constitution, or is preempted by a federal law. We have a state law that the petition records are a matter of public record. Short of repealing the law, the only way it can be struck down or rendered inoperative is if the state or federal courts find it repugnant to one of the three authorities I just mentioned.
The current case is being brought in federal court, on federal constitutional grounds. It's not being brought on the issue you're talking about -- it's not being brought on a "secret ballot" issue. It's being brought on a First Amendment free speech issue. Historically, these are different things, because the right to a secret ballot is not currently a federal right, in the sense of a voting right. This is because the Supreme Court of the U.S. has consistently ruled that the power to regulate elections is a state power, not a federal one. The Court has ruled on this as recently as last June: "State autonomy with respect to the machinery of self-government defines the States as sovereign entities rather than mere provincial outposts subject to every dictate of a central governing authority ...the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections..."
So the plaintiffs in this case are attempting to strike the Washington law based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The argument here is basically that the First Amendment guarantees secret ballots -- or secret petition signatures -- because otherwise people would be too afraid to cast controversial votes.
Probably the most obvious argument against this position is that no American state required the use of secret ballots until 1888. So there was a 97 year period between the adoption of the First Amendment and the first secret ballot in this country, during which time we presumably had something resembling a functioning democracy. One can counter that one, because the First Amendment didn't apply to the actions of individual states until 1925, but that starts to lead into some weird territory; the First Amendment still doesn't apply to states directly. It is used as part of the definition of "due process" under the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to states. But the Due Process Clause only applies to state governments. It doesn't apply to the actions of private citizens, so the actions of the political groups opposed to the R71 petition aren't really within the brief of the statute. And sort of on and on like that.
In any event, the public disclosure law we're debating has been in place since 1913 -- just two years after the initiative/referendum process itself was put in place. So it's not exactly new. And while I actually agree that, as a point of principle, votes should probably be secret, I'm pretty clear that A) the petitioners had no reasonable expectation that their names would be secret; B) I can think of a lot of good reasons to maintain the distinction between voting and signing a petition; C) SCOTUS would be engaging in a significant expansion of federal power if they got involved in this; and D) striking down this law would fundamentally alter the way the initiative/referendum process has functioned in this state pretty much since its inception.
Signing a petition is no different, even if it is a petition to make law.
Sorry, no. The Washington State constitution provides for secret ballots for elections. It does not provide for secrecy in signing petitions, even though the initiative process is described int he constitution. So, legally, they're different. Also, the federal Constitution contains several specific provisions regarding the right to vote but, so far, not one regarding initiatives or referendums. So they are, in fact, legally different.
The threat against individuals if their votes and petitions become public is real. They can be fired, lose their homes, be mistreated by their families, and be harassed by strangers.
You're focusing on (totally speculative) consequences, but not on the actions that may lead to them; all of the things you're describing can happen to someone who donates money to a political campaign. Is the right to donate money to a political campaign important to the integrity of our political process? Obviously. And yet, anyone who wants to can look up who contributed to Protect Marriage Washington, the PAC behind R71. Should we make the PAC disclosure documents private too?
The nature of the action matters -- not just what it does and what can happen as a result of it, but how it fits into the process as a whole. The political power being regulated by the public disclosure law is not the same political power that is exercised in simply voting in a republican form of government. The initiative/referendum process gives Washington voters considerably more power than is generally contemplated in the right to vote. In fact, the framers of the federal Constitution specifically avoided it because they thought it was too dangerous to be handed over to the general public. Washington State steps outside the political mainstream by offering this power to its voters -- but that additional power comes with additional accountability.
It's obtuse to pretend that the police can protect everyone from every kind of retribution they could suffer. And even the fear of retribution is enough to taint the process. That is unacceptable.
Okay, well, there's another one of those ad hominem attacks you supposedly disdain, but whatever. The law isn't designed to protect everyone from every kind of retribution they could suffer. The law is designed to draw boundaries around types of behavior, and it does that pretty well. And as far as "even the fear of retribution" being enough to "taint the process" -- all I can say is that we differ on that question. There are different kinds of fear, different kinds of retribution, and different ways of tainting the process. Again, the particulars matter.
96
It cracks me up that you think can justify the Washington law against the US Constitution by repeating what the Washington law states. Begging the question. Hello? We all get what Washington law says. Is it justified? Is it constitutional? Answering that by re-stating for the tenth time that Washington law says so is begging the fucking question.
Retribution is speculative? Fear of retribution is speculative? But a few obsessives staring at a list of thousands of names on a web site are going to use their Scooby Doo detective skills to pick out all the invalid signatures? That's not speculative?
My money says that voter intimation is real. And that if you can convince anyone that petitioners don't face intimidation, then you've also just convinced them to publish the names of who voted yes. As in, not likely. And the odds that Velma and Scooby are going to find any more than the normally expected percentage of invalid signatures -- i.e. not enough to keep anything off the ballot -- those odds are terrible. And based on speculation.
The lack of a compelling reason to publish these names remains the elephant in the room that you are dancing around while spewing with a lot of hot air.
Retribution is speculative? Fear of retribution is speculative? But a few obsessives staring at a list of thousands of names on a web site are going to use their Scooby Doo detective skills to pick out all the invalid signatures? That's not speculative?
My money says that voter intimation is real. And that if you can convince anyone that petitioners don't face intimidation, then you've also just convinced them to publish the names of who voted yes. As in, not likely. And the odds that Velma and Scooby are going to find any more than the normally expected percentage of invalid signatures -- i.e. not enough to keep anything off the ballot -- those odds are terrible. And based on speculation.
The lack of a compelling reason to publish these names remains the elephant in the room that you are dancing around while spewing with a lot of hot air.
97
I'm not dancing around it. The reason I'm not answering those questions it is because they don't legally need to be answered, and I mistakenly assumed that you understood that. The reason it doesn't need to be answered relates to a basic principle of constitutional law; the federal government is a government of enumerated powers (specific powers given to it by the constitution, and no other powers) and state governments have plenary powers (they can do anything, with a finite number of specifically enumerated exceptions). A federal law can be shown to be unconstitutional just by being shown not to be justified by the Constitution. A state law actually has to be shown to be in conflict with a higher legal authority in order to be struck down.
The Washington law has not been shown to be in conflict with a higher legal authority; therefore it is valid until it is successfully challenged. The Washington law says that the names may be published; until someone proves that the Washington law actually conflicts with a higher legal authority -- which has not happened yet -- then no further justification is required for providing the names of the petitioners to anyone who asks for them in accordance with the aforementioned Washington law.
To put it another way, if the Washington State Legislature passed a law banning outright the possession, sale, consumption or transfer of chocolate, they could do that. They could enact and enforce the law without having to provide any compelling reason at all. If the law was offensive to the state constitution, or the federal constitution, or preempted by a federal law, someone could challenge the law in court, but the burden would be on the challenger to demonstrate that the law should be struck down for one of those reason. And they'd need some precedent or historical argument in order to prove their point. Other reasons -- such as possible negative consequences for candy store owners -- would not stand.
So while voter intimidation is bad, it doesn't actually constitute legal cause for striking down the Washington state law unless it can be shown that A) there is a real connection between the Washington law and actual voter intimidation (speculative wrongs tend not to hold up well in SCOTUS) and B) actual voter intimidation in this case is prohibited by a higher legal authority (First Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment, whatever).
Consequently, nobody has to prove that voter intimidation (or some other bad thing) is more "real" than the possibility of invalid signatures in order for the current Washington law to be constitutional. Nor do they have to justify it or provide a compelling reason. They may have to do that if the SCOTUS decides that the Washington law actually violates the First Amendment -- in that case the SCOTUS may apply a balancing test to decide if the state interest in having the law outweighs the privacy interests of the signatories. But first they'd actually have to find a violation which, again, hasn't happened yet. So, for the time being, the law can be assumed to be constitutional and, therefore, as justified as it legally needs to be.
Not every unexplained assumption is begging the fucking question. Sometimes, it's just a case of someone giving you more credit than you deserve.
More...
We all get what Washington law says. Is it justified? Is it constitutional? ...blah blah blah... The lack of a compelling reason to publish these names remains the elephant in the room that you are dancing around while spewing with a lot of hot air.
I'm not dancing around it. The reason I'm not answering those questions it is because they don't legally need to be answered, and I mistakenly assumed that you understood that. The reason it doesn't need to be answered relates to a basic principle of constitutional law; the federal government is a government of enumerated powers (specific powers given to it by the constitution, and no other powers) and state governments have plenary powers (they can do anything, with a finite number of specifically enumerated exceptions). A federal law can be shown to be unconstitutional just by being shown not to be justified by the Constitution. A state law actually has to be shown to be in conflict with a higher legal authority in order to be struck down.
The Washington law has not been shown to be in conflict with a higher legal authority; therefore it is valid until it is successfully challenged. The Washington law says that the names may be published; until someone proves that the Washington law actually conflicts with a higher legal authority -- which has not happened yet -- then no further justification is required for providing the names of the petitioners to anyone who asks for them in accordance with the aforementioned Washington law.
To put it another way, if the Washington State Legislature passed a law banning outright the possession, sale, consumption or transfer of chocolate, they could do that. They could enact and enforce the law without having to provide any compelling reason at all. If the law was offensive to the state constitution, or the federal constitution, or preempted by a federal law, someone could challenge the law in court, but the burden would be on the challenger to demonstrate that the law should be struck down for one of those reason. And they'd need some precedent or historical argument in order to prove their point. Other reasons -- such as possible negative consequences for candy store owners -- would not stand.
So while voter intimidation is bad, it doesn't actually constitute legal cause for striking down the Washington state law unless it can be shown that A) there is a real connection between the Washington law and actual voter intimidation (speculative wrongs tend not to hold up well in SCOTUS) and B) actual voter intimidation in this case is prohibited by a higher legal authority (First Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment, whatever).
Consequently, nobody has to prove that voter intimidation (or some other bad thing) is more "real" than the possibility of invalid signatures in order for the current Washington law to be constitutional. Nor do they have to justify it or provide a compelling reason. They may have to do that if the SCOTUS decides that the Washington law actually violates the First Amendment -- in that case the SCOTUS may apply a balancing test to decide if the state interest in having the law outweighs the privacy interests of the signatories. But first they'd actually have to find a violation which, again, hasn't happened yet. So, for the time being, the law can be assumed to be constitutional and, therefore, as justified as it legally needs to be.
Not every unexplained assumption is begging the fucking question. Sometimes, it's just a case of someone giving you more credit than you deserve.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Jeremy Lin Saves the NBA by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (97) RSS