The Court on Friday afternoon announced it was granting review in five new cases, including Doe#1 v. Reed, a case from Washington state asking whether that state's public records disclosure law violates the privacy rights of voters who signed petitions to launch a referendum aimed at overturning a law allowing same-sex domestic partnerships. Sponsors of the ballot initiative went to court to keep the names from being posted on the Internet, claiming that would violate their right to anonymous speech and would subject signers to threats and harassment.I think both sides of the case have valid arguments; one side is lobbying for open government and the other side’s argument is that it stifles unpopular stands on issues.
A little background on the issues before the Supreme Court, in 1972 a ballot initiative was passed by the voters of Washington state,
Washington's public records and open public meetings laws, passed separately in the early 1970s, are a product of the "open government" climate brought about by distrust of government accountability and by misuse of government power during the civil rights and Vietnam protest era. Citizen groups such as the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Coalition for Open Government, and others succeeded in promoting such legislation at a time when conservative opposition to such measures was discredited. (The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press)The law is now being challenged by a group (Protect Marriage Washington) that tried to overturn the domestic partnership law. They are claim that by disclosing the name of the people who signed the petition for Referendum 71, that it will expose them to undue harassment and/or reprisals. While the other side is making the argument for an open governmental process. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the names should be released, saying that, “protecting the integrity of elections through transparency and providing voters with information about who supported placing the referendum on the ballot.” So now the case goes before the Supreme Court.
I can see the arguments made by both sides as valid, but I tend to lean towards the side that wants to block the names. I tend to look at it as a form of voting. However, I am really torn on this question, I believe in open government, but should that include people who petition government or just government operations?
As a member of a highly oppressed and marginalized community, I have seen how fear has prevented members of our community from speaking out. When I try to get people to come out and speak to their legislators or testify, I hear the same thing over and over again. They are afraid of losing their job or their family or their housing or being harassed or stigmatized and that fear is real. When we talk to legislators they say that they hear from those who are against the anti-discrimination legislation, but they never hear from anyone in favor of the bill. We try to explain to them being such a small oppressed community that it is hard for anyone to overcome their fears. When I testified before the Judiciary Committee, I stated my name, my address and town and imagine my dismay when I heard the committee co-chair announce proudly that they were the first committee to post the testimony on-line. To this day, if you Google my full name you come up with my address and the fact that I am a transsexual.
Therefore, I will be waiting for the Supreme Court decision and see what are their thoughts on the issue.
Just to clarify some points. I am in favor of a transparent government and I believe in the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and I also think that campaign financing should be public information. I think that we have the right to know who are funding campaign ads and I see that as being distinctly different from who are signing a petition.
Please leave comments on your thoughts, I would love to hear what others think on this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment