Litigation

Petition-Privacy Ruling ?More of a Beginning??

By Peter Hardin

When the Supreme Court handed down a major First Amendment decision recently, the lopsided 8-1 ruling was deceptive, according to a Washington Post analysis.

In the case from Washington state, the Supreme Court ruled that not all signers of  petitions seeking a public vote on a hot policy issue can expect to keep their identities anonymous (see Gavel Grab).

Reporter Robert Barnes pored over the majority opinion and six individual signed opinions and further explained the outcome:

“[T]he decision could be more of a beginning than an end. That’s because the other way to look at the decision is that a majority of the court decided that signing one’s name to a petition also is a form of political expression that, in some cases, warrants First Amendment protection.

“The decision could carve out a much more active role for the judiciary in determining in certain instances whether disclosing names brings a reasonable probability of  ‘threats, harassment or reprisals’ from government officials or from other members of the public.”

The court handed a defeat to gay marriage foes who had fought to  keep secret the names of people who signed a ballot petition seeking repeal of Washington state?s domestic partnership law. The Supreme Court did not draw the case to a conclusion, however. Its decision said the petition signers have a right to persuade a lower court that disclosing their names would make them subject to harassment.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 29, 2010 (boomark / email).