By announcing that it will weigh in on a lower-court's ruling to release the names of Referendum 71 petitioner signers, the Supreme Court could be foreshadowing that they plan to overturn the previous decision. If that happens, people in Washington could sign any petition—to legalize pot, back a Tim Eyman measure, a referendum to put gay marriage on the ballot (if the legislature ever passes it), etc.—without any way for the public to identify them or determine if their signatures were legal. Or maybe the Supreme Court wants to do the opposite: Once and for all decide that the names of bigots, pot heads, and tax freaks need to remain public. It's impossible to know, really. What do the experts think?

"We think the 9th Circuit's ruling is correct, so we're disappointed that the Supreme Court is reviewing it," says ACLU of Washington's Doug Honig. He says the case is moving quickly and the ACLU will soon file a brief asking the high court to disclose petition signature names.

Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, adds that the case raises Constitutional questions. Stepping out of the Prop 8 Trial underway in San Francisco to share her thoughts, Pizer says the decision to take the case “is not necessarily a sign of how the Supreme Court will vote" but the court is "intrigued" by questions about what the U.S. Constitution requires regarding the public's right to have information about making laws.

Perhaps most noteworthy about this case is the timing.

Many have said that this is not so much a case about gay rights, but about good government. That’s technically true. "Anonymous participation in the initiative process would eviscerate several longstanding government-accountability measures in Washington state," former Republican state representative Toby Nixon, director of Washington Coalition for Open Government, told the Stranger in September. The group has joined the lawsuit to advocate that the names of R-71 signers be released. But the reason this issue is going to the Supreme Court now has everything to do with gay rights.

“There have been contentious initiatives about affirmative action, women’s reproductive rights, immigration, the death penalty, and taxes,” Pizer points out. Those issues “are as heated, if not more heated, than the disagreements about LGBT equality,” but “proponents of anti-gay initiatives and referenda have demanded concealment in a new way recently.”

“It happens that anti-gay groups are trying to closet themselves contrary to longstanding open government laws,” Pizer says.

She dismisses claims that "anti-gay activists face harsh treatment from which they should be protected." She says, "It is gay people who are the subject of pernicious propaganda during the these various state campaigns."

Nixon, reached by phone today, says the court "must consider it to be a challenging issue or they would have just let the 9th Circuit decisions stand." He adds, "I'm thinking that maybe they want to be more emphatic about it."

Any lawyers lurking in the corners of Slog with thoughts on today's development?