Is Signing a Referendum Petition Like Voting?

Signing a petition is first and foremost an act of petitioning the government. Even if the opponents declare it is some type of citizen legislating, which is utterly insane, the person is still in the act petitioning their government. All the protections of the first amendment throughout this country have given the protection of anonymity for dissent. Anonymous dissent enables those to speak out against the tyranny of the majority. That is what free speech was created for. Unpopular speech must be protected.
Using your logic voting on referendums and initiatives should also be made public. For the initiative process and referendum are not in the U.S. Consitution and are rights granted to its residents by the states. The Supreme Court has held that position. Your argument suggests that the protections of the U.S. Constitiution are not imbedded within the I&R process. (For which I vehemently disagree, all rights such as I&R granted by a state must assume people still carry their U.S. Constitutional rights). So therefore as the citizen legislators votes in unison on legislative acts (not just electing legislators) your argument extends to knowing how all citizen legislators voted on said legislative act since you must want to know how they signed.
The idea that "no voter who has signed a petition should have any reasonable expectation of privacy" is a blatant attack of our Constitutional rights. Uhhhh, lets step back here. 1.)You used the word PETITION. Definition of the word PETITION is A formal, written request made to an official person or organized body, often containing many signatures 2.) First Amendment of the Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to PETITION the Government for a redress of grievances." 3.) Supreme Court has held numerous times the First Amendment speech to be anonymous. Fear of prosecution and persecution is a compelling interest to keep political speech anonymous.
Signature gathering fraud like voting fraud is something that must be combated without undermining the rights of people's privacy. We dont release the names of how people voted to root out voting fraud. When fraud occurs in California there is compelling interest by a judge to allow for secretary of state and registrar of voters to allow opponents or others to challenge but not to release names to public.
Many people now want a fascist state where people will be called out on the carpet for their votes and political stances. Mao and Lenin would be smiling now. What is new? Our country doesn't resemble what the framers wanted and if people's rights are violated it would come as no surprise. However with an 8 to 1 ruling at this stage it leads me to believe on the surface the SCOTUS shares my view for the moment.

"The Supreme Court would be wise to reverse itself quickly and let the petitions released -- so voters can see who signed Referendum 71 before an election."

This is identity politics at its worst. A petition, by its nature, is uncorruptable: a petition does the same thing no matter who signs it, circulates it, or financially supports it. Unlike a politician, a petition can't change its mind based on outside influences: the text is static.

The only reason that anyone would want these signatures to be public is so that the people who signed this petition can be harassed. That will place a chill on the petitioning process by making people afraid of harassment for exercising their first amendment right to petition their government.

I support gay rights and the material substance of R-71 sickens me, but just like even though I hate the KKK, I see the value of protecting their first amendment rights. This is the same situation: I see the value of protecting the right to petition by keeping these signatures private. Gay rights supporters need to quit trying to use underhanded tactics to get this referendum thrown off the ballot or intimidate their neighbors and instead mount an education campaign to win fairly at the ballot box.

If signing a petition to put a referendum on a ballot is legislating, then how is pulling the lever in the ballot box not legislating? Both are directly part of the lawmaking process. Should we not then make voting on initiatives and referendums part of the public record?

Actually, signing the petition to put a measure on the ballot is traditionally a legislative process in California. Voting on measures is not. For example, the legislature can put a constitutional amendment or an amendment of an initiative statute on the ballot (an amendment requires a two-thirds vote). That's a legislative task. But the legislature cannot itself enact the constitutional or initiative statute amendment. That requires the voters, casting ballots. When you sign the petition, you're part of the process of formulating the law or constitutional amendment. It's a different role. To the commenter who wants to protect privacy: I hate what the gay rights movement has done on this, but there are two problems with your view. 1. the petitions aren't private. People are signing their name, in public, with the full knowledge the document is going to the government. Anyone who signs thinking this is a private act is a fool. 2. your view seems to be that every form of democratic discussion is harassment. It isn't. For example, if I saw a family member or friend had signed Referendum 71, I'd certainly ask them about it, or even argue. That's what is supposed to happen in a democracy. Folks who sign a petition should be accountable for that signature--heck, they felt strongly enough about the issue to sign a petition. It's perfectly fine for them to be asked hard questions about it...It's a very wimpy sort of democracy where people sign a petition and don't want anyone to know. By those lights, why not simply let voters sign anonymously? Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/