Washington Post Editorial: Names on referendum petitions should not be shielded

Washington Post Editorial: Names on referendum petitions should not be shielded
Copyright by The Washington Post
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042704579.html


LAST YEAR, the state of Washington passed a far-reaching law that gave same-sex couples many of the same legal protections and responsibilities enjoyed by married heterosexuals. Almost immediately, a group calling itself Protect Marriage Washington began working to repeal the measure. Its first step: circulating petitions and collecting signatures to put the measure up for referendum.

The actions in Washington followed a similar fight over same-sex marriage in California. Opponents of same-sex marriage in that state also took up a petition that led to a vote to ban gay marriage. Some who backed this initiative became targets of harassment, threats and even violence, primarily vandalism.

Protect Marriage Washington wanted its signatories to avoid this fate and asked a court to block the public dissemination of their names. It challenged the Washington Public Records Act, which calls for disclosure of certain government records, as "unconstitutional as applied to referendum petitions because it violates the interest in privacy of identity, association, and belief" and because "there is a reasonable probability that the signatories . . . will be subjected to threats, harassment, and reprisals."

The Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on Wednesday, should reject these arguments. (Disclosure: The Washington Post Co. joined a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the state and its public disclosure law.)

The petition process is an inherently public endeavor. Ordinary citizens take on the role of public actors by signing a petition to put a policy question to a vote. This is not the voting booth, and those who voluntarily add their names to a petition have never had an expectation of privacy. Contrary to what Protect Marriage Washington argues, public disclosure of the names does not stifle any person's speech or interfere with an individual's First Amendment rights to association.

Great harm would result if the Supreme Court adopted the group's approach. The government would have to shoulder a much higher burden before publicly disclosing any record that contains information about an individual. This could affect not just petitions but a whole host of state and federal records that have been routinely subject to public disclosure. Essentially putting these records out of reach, including to news organizations, would severely undermine the public's ability to police and expose corruption.

Intimidation or harassment of political participants is reprehensible. This is just as true when the victims are opponents of same-sex marriage as when they are gay-rights advocates. Violence, including vandalism, is beyond the pale, and law enforcement officials should act decisively to punish those who engage in it. But the bad behavior of some should not be used as an excuse to undermine public information laws that benefit all.