About this Blog
Direct democracy -- the Switzerland-inspired system of initiatives, referenda and recalls that allows voters to make and repeal laws in 24 states -- is poorly understood. It isn’t even very direct. Direct democracy has become blockbuster democracy: a half-billion-dollar international industry of signature gatherers, consultants, and election lawyers who use ballot measures less as a method of making law and more as a tool of mega-communications to boost some politicians, hurt others, and supplement lobbying campaigns.
Blockbuster democracy is a decentralized business that practices wide-open politics. This blog aims to provide a center of news, analysis and conversation for and about the industry. We will report from blockbuster democracy’s capital -- California -- but we’ll monitor ballot measures from across the country and around the globe.
Your Blogger: Joe Mathews is an
User login
Are Signatures on a Referendum Petition Private?
Yes, said U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle last week in granting a preliminary injunction that keeps secret the names of voters who signed the petition demanding a refernedum on a Washington state law that grants virtually all the rights of married couples to domestic partners.
Settle's decision comes from his stated and understandable desire to protect those signers from the pressure tactics of gay rights groups, who have said they would target those who signed (just as advocates for and against same-sex marriage in California have sought to pressure donors to the campaigns for and against Prop 8). Gay rights groups are probably hurting themselves with this approach, and all sides in the dispute should be more respectful of those with whom they disagree. But this is a dangerous decison that does real damage to the first amendment and to the public's right to know.
Petitioning the government to overturn a law is not, in way shape or form, a private act. It's a legislative act, in fact. Such a decision could be used as a precedent to shield other legislative acts and attempts to influence the law from disclosure and scrutiny. Some contacts between the public and the government required privacy, especially when the public is required to give the government information (as in the case of taxes). But since the Declaration of Independence, signing one's name to a petition in this country has been a public act. Settle's decision is a terrible departure from our constitutional tradition. he should reverse himself before a higher court does it for him. .
Petitioning your government
Petitioning your government for redress of grievances is one of the fundamental right a citizen of this great nation is awarded.
From the opinion of this decision of Doe v. Reed: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/09/10/2009842734.pdf
"The right to speak anonymously was of fundamental importance to
the establishment of our Constitution. Throughout the revolutionary and early federal period in American history, anonymous speech and the use of pseudonyms were powerful tools of political debate. The Federalist Papers (authored by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) were written anonymously under the name “Publius.” The anti-federalists responded with anonymous articles of their own, authored by “Cato” and “Brutus,” among others..... Anonymous speech is a great
tradition that is woven into the fabric of this nation’s history.
When speech touches on matters of public political life, such as
debate over the qualifications of candidates, discussion of governmental or political affairs, discussion of political campaigns, and advocacy of controversial points of view, such speech has been described as the “core” or “essence” of the First Amendment."
The argument of being legislators is a red herring. Give me a break. People signing are asking for redress through an election. The exchange of ideas and dissent of government is also to be petitioned either through direct means (as a binding vote) or indirect means (through a letter or request of legislators). Exposing names to the public can lead to an enemies list. Who would speak out in fear of prosecution or persecution? Public disclosure of the names to whole public is a total rebuke of our first amendment. It is First for a reason. Other than the fact that they are verified people just like a vote. If their are discrepancies then those could be rectified or addressed.
Post new comment