Judge shields signatures in gay rights referendum

[WillParkinson]

Source: The Associated Press

Judge shields signatures in gay rights referendum
By The Associated Press
09.11.2009 8:54am EDT

(Olympia, Wash.) A federal judge on Thursday ordered the state of Washington to keep shielding the identities of people who signed petitions to force a vote on expanded benefits for gay couples.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma granted the preliminary injunction involving petitions for Referendum 71 while a related case moves forward on the constitutionality of the state public records act.

The referendum, sponsored by a group called Protect Marriage Washington, asks voters to approve or reject the “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law that state lawmakers passed earlier this year.

In his ruling, Settle said he was “not persuaded that waiver of one’s fundamental right to anonymous political speech is a prerequisite for participation in Washington’s referendum process.”

Brian Zylstra, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, said that the judge’s decision “is a step away from open government.”

Read more: http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-shields-signatures-in-gay-rights-referendum/

[Tesha]

1. Dear Unrecommender...

Did you push the wrong button?
Did you object to the Judge's decision and hope thatchf we don't know about it, it will go away?
Is it a personal thing with the poster?
Or did you just oppose that posting in particular?

In any case, I've undone your action. This is important and all DUers should know that this happened.

Tesha

[Tesha]

2. Watch *THAT* get reversed on appeal!

You have no right to privacy on a public petition.

Tesha

[closeupready]

3. If you lobby to take rights away from your neighbors, then they have a right to know!

n/t

[paulsby]

7. by that principle, one's actual votes

not just signing a petition would also be subject to public disclosure

think about it.

[closeupready]

8. Except that votes are specifically not subject to public disclosure.

Regardless of whether it would be consistent with my logic. So that point is moot.

[paulsby]

9. no, it's not

because i wasn't talking about the law, i was talking about YOUR point

that's why i said "by your principle"

try again...,

and read for content next time

i am well aware of the LAW, this case is in my state. i was referring to your principle that you stated

here. i;ll quote myself "by that principle"...


hth

[closeupready]

10. The principle of free speech is abridged by the rule about not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

that makes sense, even though it doesn't follow the principle.

A ban against publicly revealing how people vote also makes sense despite not following my principle.

A ban against revealing who signed a petition to lobby lawmakers to take rights away from others does not makes sense.

Try reading for comprehension for a change, unless you think the world should revolve around you and what you think.

[paulsby]

11. man, that's two errors

there is no rule about yelling fire.

it's FALSELY yelling fire.

and it was a case that used that analogy to justify the prosecution of a WAR protestor.

and it was superseded by brandenberg (the false report of fire meme was in schenck)

iow, it is NO LONGER THE LAW OF THE LAND.

the brandenberg standard is. duh

again, try getting your legal memes right, and THEN try reading for content.

i responded to your "principle". and you STILL don't get it

[closeupready]

13. I get that you are rude. You don't need to explain that to me.

n/t

[paulsby]

14. evasion noted nt

[closeupready]

15. plonk

n/t

[paulsby]

16. ooooh! yer a usenet alumni. im impressed. evasion on multiple platforms! nt

[xchrom]

4. aren't petitions public?

and why are people who are so concerned with taking away rights so concerned about their identity?

aren't they proud of themselves?

[Politicub]

5. Of course, if you hate gays, you get special rights to privacy

If these people want to make a political statement, they should have the wherewithal to stand behind it.

But of course, the signatories are bullies that want to hurt others because they are so insecure and want to hurt others as much as they feel a gay marriage will hurt them.

And like any bully, they want to hide and not get called out.

They are trash and vermin.

Gay marriage hurts NO ONE. That should be the yardstick by which it is judged. Not some kind of puritan offense that some people have. I'm sick of our elected officials coddling bullies, and seeing these kind of egregious affronts to human dignity being placed before the people as something that should be voted on.

[David__77]

6. In principle, I have mixed feelings.

There is a chilling effect possible from having the names public; however, for tactical reasons, I fully support making these names public in this case. On the other hand, if there were an initiative to do something very progressive in labor relations, for instance, I wouldn't want employers to blacklist employees or prospective employees based on their signing such an initiative.

[LisaM]

12. That's a good point and I agree with you

on the other hand, what backlash could people expect from its being known that they signed this petition? Other than well-deserved scorn from thinking people, I mean.

[Divine Discontent]

17. simple enough, don't sign it unless you want it to be known, and if you really want to sign it but

feel it may risk you somehow, get a friend to sign it who agrees with the thing you're signing.

[buckrogers1965]

18. The real reason they are sheilding the names

They don't want the names double checked for accuracy by a bunch of groups. From what I hear there were a lot of bogus names added to the petition.