SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
On Thursday, a federal judge in Washington ordered that signature sheets from the successful petition campaign to refer the state's domestic partnership law to the fall ballot remain off limits to the public. Usually, names of people who sign petitions are part of the public record, but it's become controversial in this case because of a related lawsuit challenging Washington's public records law.
The conservative advocacy organization Protect Marriage Washington turned in 138,000 signatures to put Referendum 71 on the November ballot. Another group, which supports the domestic partnership law, launched a web site to publicize the names and addresses of people who signed the petition. The group behind the web site says they want people to be able to check the accuracy of signatures for themselves.
A similar organization cropped up in Oregon in 2007 when a petition was circulating to refer Oregon's domestic partnership law to the ballot. That effort failed and the signatures were never posted, but the group that wanted to make the signatures public argued that part of their purpose was to inspire civil dialogue among people who disagreed about this controversial issue. In both the current Washington case and the situation that occurred in Oregon, supporters of the signature campaigns argued that publishing names and addresses of those who signed to block domestic partnerships would lead to harrassment, intimidation and even violence.
Have you ever signed a petition? Did you think about whether or not your name would be public? Do you consider public records law when you choose whether or not to register with a political party? When is anonymity useful in the democratic process?
GUESTS:
- Rachel La Corte: Associated Press correspondent in charge of the Olympia office
- Randi Romo: Executive director of Center for Artistic Revolution, which collaborated with KnowThyNeighbor in 2008
- Stephen Pidgeon: Attorney for Protect Marriage Washington
- Shane Hamlin: Assistant director of elections for the Washington Secretary of State's office
Tagged as: civic engagement · domestic partnerships · open records
Photo credit: Jim Frazier / Creative Commons
-
Of course 'the signers' may not at all be 'hate-mongers', and only voicing their disapproval of the legislature initiating this burden on taxpayers with allowing a public vote. This is a frequent problem in WA and OR, which has very poor equity in voting / representation for the diversity of their states.
I feel it is not proper to release the names for the opponents of the measure to encourage the harassment of individuals. (Which is what the issue is, and has been stated as such). This does nothing for democracy, and as I mentioned, the signers are likely not bigots, just looking for legislative responsibility.
-
The fact is that progress is not always popular in the beginning.
A person should feel safe from retribution for their views and their willingness to try and inact change. The example I would offer is the original civil rights movement. Perhaps there were many people who believed in sharing these rights with people of color, but were afraid to voice their upopular views. If they could sign a petition privately and get the issue on the ballot (and begin a serious discussion within the media) then the movement could progress based on an accurate account of a minority's values, even when they are not necessarily popular.
I feel this is no different today. If people want to attempt change of any kind they should be free to do so. If time goes by and a debate in the public forum doesn't accumulate a majority of votes then it won't happen.
-
I have little sympathy since the "anti" groups have been publishing people's names, and sometimes even addresses, for quite a while now on a number of issues like abortion. I'm sure they would say that that was OK because their cause was righteous and the means justified the ends. I just think that they are reaping the whirlwind that they themselves created.
The petitions are public record. If you're willing to sign one, then you should be willing to have that known. If the law is changed so that these petitions are NOT public record, then everyone who signs every petition should be protected.
-
What is the justification for the state to protect a hate group?
-
The 1st amendment of the Constitution?
-
Please forgive me but what hate group are you talking about. What is their name and which side are they on?
-
Interesting and ironic.
People who want to limit or restrict the rights of others, want to have their rights protected. Egregious!
If you want to sign a petition to be a bigot, which is really the only interpretation plausible, then do so in public. It is easier for hate to foster when it has the cover of anonymity.
-
I think that the petition form of legislation is abused way too much on the west coast. This is why we elect legislators. Besides many referendums have many unintended consequences such as Prop 13 in CA (can anyone say budget crisis).
That being said a petition should be a public record. I am proud to be identified for the things that I would sign for. As far as this petition, those who sign it should be proud to be bigots. I would not abuse these people, but I would make some decisions based on it. One example is the owner of a certain fast food chain who is a known homophobe. As a gay man, I don't dine on burgers there. I would not want to spend money with someone who is a bigot.
-
Who's for and against something needs to be transparent.
Did the judge fear for signers' safety, given the hatefulness in some recent attacks, like the Senator Lewis' nasty "You lie!" comment hurled at President Obama recently?
What reason did the judge give, if any, for not letting the light of day shine on who for the instant petition?
Having openess decreases the tendency toward furor which results from the secrecy some would use to shield themselves from being questioned as to their reasoning and their motives. Don't we require knowing who authors petitions? Supporters are not that distinct a group to keep them from the same scrutiny.
Ordering that the signatures on these petitions be off limits to public scrutiny simply stifles public debate. Open up all petition signatures to scrutiny.
Gail R. Campbell, Eugene, Oregon
-
I think there is a big difference between PAID signature gatherers and people who do it out of their passion for the petition. There is too much incentive for a paid signature gatherer to cut corners, forge signatures, or mislead signers. I think ALL referendums which employ paid signature gatherers should be published online.
-
Our nation was founded by referendum. Our founding fathers disclosed their names and could have been executed for their act. It makes the actions of a few closed minded homophobes look paltry by comparison. If they believe the way they do, we the people, deserve to know.
-
This is about whether Conservatives will be allowed to continue their persecution of homosexuals.
I am reminded that Conservatives supported and funded Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, when he was persecuting Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, black people, etc.
It is far past time that homosexuals be recognized as fully human, with all the rights guaranteed by our Constitution to all American citizens.
-
I really agree with the comment that Dave repeated - you wouldn't show up to a Town Hall meeting to support a city law with a bag over your head. A petition to send a law to the voters is a public action and by signing it you are publicy saying you support it. So if you support it, you need to stand up and be recognized. If people don't like being called out for their bigotry then maybe they shouldn't go around trying to take away other people's civil rights.
-
When you go to a town hall meeting, are you required to give your name and address?
-
When you go to a town hall meeting, You do not stand up and say: "I'm [Joe T Sixpack] and my home address is:xxxxxx, let me know when you are ready for me to continue..." If you support it, it's your choice to determine the extent. Would you go to a town hall meeting if you had to tell the entire world (public is public) where you live?
I hate bigots. I strongly believe that the bill is a legalized attempt to support bigotry. What happens is when the opposition sinks to these tactics? Imagine a public marijuanna legalization petition; if I supported that I would be VERY afraid to sign it.
Goodnight democracy; it was a nice run...
-
Mike, I think you're right; that in a "town hall" setting you might not need to give much personal information to say an opinion or ask a question. In a slightly different setting you may be asked to. I've heard people say their addresses for the record at public meetings around town. Also check out these guidelines for testifying in front of the Oregon Legislature. First thing after hello is to say your name, address, and the group you represent.
-Emily
-
Ironically, Mr. Stickney would like the opponents of this bill accorded the kind of respect for their wishes that they would deny to the people supporting the respect this bill would provide.
Gail R. Campbell
-
In America, we've always had secret ballots for voters, so people could feel free to express their opinions, without being picked on by extremists. This is the basis for freedom and democracy.
Sounds like we need to extend anonimity to signing petitions. If people are afraid to peacefully express their opinions, good or bad, we will have lost the very thing that makes America great.Was is Edmund Burke who said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-
That is an absolutely bogus comparison. A petition drive is not a vote.
The petition originators and signers knew what the law was when they set out to get this law on the ballot. It is a public process.
The petition process is state law and the state gets to make the rules for it. The state has said that the names will be public. That was known up front.
-
Actually, we have not "always" had secret ballots; they didn't become commonplace in the U.S. until the late 19th century.
-
I'm no longer comfortable signing petitions because I am afraid of people who violently disagree. I am physically unable to protect myself from such people. I am worried just typing this in right now.
To Dave Miller: if someone asks for my real name and address, will OPB give it to them?
-
Mikejb: We would never share your name with anyone. It was an important enough question that I just wrote a full blog post in response. You can read it here.
-
Mike,
I think you're my favorite commentator on this topic; I agree with what you're saying and I think it sees to the heart of the bigger issue: democracy.
I hope you will continue to express yourself without fear. Your courage to speak sincerely inspires.
-
I think that if the tables were turned and it was the gay rights groups that had gathered signatures to refer a referendum to the ballot in favor of gay marriage they would not try to hide their names. If you believe in what you sign and support you should be able to defend your beliefs and not be afraid of people who have an opposing view.
-
What if there were a ballot saying that partial-birth abortion should be legal. This is a procedure that the majority of people think should be illegal. People who would sign such a ballot might be considered extremely pro-abortion. Would they want their names spread around the internet? Probably not.
-
remmurf - Those people might not want their names spread around. In which case, they should not sign the petition.
-
Morrolan:
So, people who are afraid of being killed by that one irrational anti/pro-something, should be silent and not participate in society?
-
How are the felons and dead people's privacy going to be treated in Washington State. They are the swing votes after all.
-
It is not always wise to presume we know the motives of others. That said, I believe the religious right protest marriage for gays because they need a group or groups they can feel superior to. Fine. Sign your petitions but have the nerve to do so publicly. Let the world know your values. Worried about death threats ? I got them when I wrote a letter to the Oregonian about gay rights. I will continue to speak up for what I feel is right and good.
-
People have a right to protest and heckle outside abortion clinics. This seems acceptable to everyone. People have a right to force fur shops to close because of persistent protesting. If you sign a bigoted petition and someone wants to heckle you, then that is simply the cost of doing business.
If we use the same logic to keep petitions anonymous, then I suppose we should also stop people from protesting outside abortion clinics and fur shops. The controversy is not in petitions being public, the controversy is the content of certain petitions. We don't make things anonymous to lessen controversy---not in my America anyway.
-
Surely there are better ways to open a meaningful dialogue about a controversial issue than confronting someone with your knowledge that he signed a petition and demanding that he defend his action. In my opinion, signing a petition should have the same privacy protection as voting. Also, what a way to cause rifts in families/friendships - looking for names of people you might know who signed a petition you are opposed to. In my family, we are aware of our differences, but respect each other's privacy on these issues.
-
Whether or not "there are better ways to open a meaningful dialogue about a controversial issue" is irrelevant. We don't get to decide what meaningful dialogue is! Modes of dialogue, tacky or not, are also a part of the freedom of speech. I may not like the methods, but we should not stop access to them.
-
Signing a petition is not a private act. These petitions are signed in public places, outside of the grocery store, library, and in the town square. It is not a vote, which is a private act.
-
Yes, signers are doing it in public. But if someone wants to see those signatures, let them go look at the petitions in person. As a taxpayer I don't want to pay a civil servant to spend time publishing those databases-- they have better things to do with my tax dollars.
-
This Larry Stickney fellow is trying to portray himself as the victim, just like Hitler exhorted to the Nazis that they were the victims of the jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.
No! The victimizer is not the victim, he is the perpetrator of the continued abuse of homosexuals.
-
I've got two words for you: "John Hancock."
This country was founded on people who stood up for what they believe in and let it be known - even when they could have been killed. If you're ashamed of your position and don't want anyone to know you signed the petition, then don't sign it. If you have a belief that you want to support, then support it. Out loud.
The individuals that you are opposing have the right to know who is opposing them. Can't stand being contacted - then don't sign.
Michelle from Beavercreek, OR
-
The common argument for the referendum process is that citizens have the right to act when the legislature doesn’t. When someone signs a petition, they become a de-facto legislator. These petitions have real consequences in law. Legislators of any kind cannot be anonymous. The analogy to a secret ballot is false. When you sign a petition, you are attempting to legislate, and that is different from voting.
-
A petition is not a vote. A peitition is an endorsement of an idea or concept. It is imperitive that those who endorse an idea or concept be identified. The signers are endorsers therefore their identity should be freely published so that those for or against the idea or concept can measure those who support it via casual relationship to good friends.
- Russ from Beaverton, OR
-
Why are there two representatives of "Protect Marriage Washington" on here and none from the gay rights organizations that want to make these names public?
-
Sorry: we should have made this clearer. We'd booked one for the whole section of the show when the PMW folks were going to be on. He then backed out because of a scheduling conflict.
-
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
When someone is threatened, it is a legal issue and the victim should contact the appropriate law enforcement. Having been stalked and threatened in my life, I didn’t try and change sunshine laws, I went to the police.
-
Not everyone who signs a petition to add a measure to the ballot agrees with the measure. I have signed petitions for measures I did not support, but I felt that they should be voted on by the electorate. I feel I can handle the phone calls that ensue.
-
Referendum signatures should be released, precisely because it is NOT a vote. It is a pre-vote activity that carries a similar weight as being a monetary donor to a cause and folks who sign petitions should be aware of that.
Folks who are willing to engage in the legislative process should be prepared to have a thoughtful conversation, pre-vote, about the benefits and consequences of the legal implications of the legislation they are putting forward.
I would be completely comfortable answering to my signature on any petition I have signed.
-
I am staunchly supportive of gay rights, but we have to keep in mind that the core issue here is process, not whether you're conservative or liberal on a particular issue. The question presented has and will continue to play out in many situations in which conservative and liberal contingents find themselves on both sides of the question. We accept as fundamental that when people vote, the ultimate political act, they do so in private precisely to protect them from fear of pressure, reprisals, harrassment, ostracization, etc. Anonymity is the only way we can ensure that people truly vote their conscience. Why should this be any different in the referendum process?
-
Thank you for getting to the heart of the issue.
-
Thanks for saying so. I am disturbed by so many saying that 'only the strong people should be able to participate, the weak ones should be suppressed'.
I used to be glad I was born in a country that respected every person. But now I am afraid of a bomb thrown thru my window, or a drive-by shooting or being arrested on some trumpted-up charge-- just because I have an opinion.
-
There have been so many problems in the recent past with the signature gathering process and so often people sign multiple pages without thinking about what they're signing.
Releasing the names of signature gatherers will make people read and become educated about what they're signing, rather than blindly signing. Educating the public is never wrong.
-
Keeping votes and petition signatures private between the participants should stay in place. Anyone who is willing to participate should be somewhat accountable to their opinion. What needs to be addressed is how we can safely bring everyone to the table. How can we begin to allow the extremely polarized individuals to come to the table. We as a country have an amazing history of working things out. Yes the past is littered with bullying and coruption. So, in this day of rapid and varied sharing of information (Your program is a great example) we must evolve to a point of facing each other and grinding the details out on how we will continue together. (without killing each other)
-
As was said on the program, without making the signatures public, the people signing the petitions have no strong interest in finding out, looking into, or educating themselves about the other side of a petition. ONLY when people are pushed and lists are published are those who sign blindly truly forced to educate themselves about what they're signing.
Opening the lists to public scrutiny is a good thing, will promote discussion, but to expect that there really will be a huge threat to the signers is taking it too far. Educate voters about what they're signing, and conversations will take place, and we will be a better society.
-
For those of us who believe that all Washington families should have protections and support the domestic partnership law, this discussion has distracted voters from the real issue which is that Washington’s gay and lesbian and senior families could lose vital protections. Voters should Approve Referendum 71 so that all Washington families have the protections to do things such as take sick leave to care for a critically ill family member. The conversation should be focused on the problems facing gay and lesbian families because they have been denied equal protection of the law and the need to protect senior couples who lose social security benefits if they remarry in older age. Learn more about the approve referendum 71 campaign at www.approve71.org
-
I believe the topic is "Referendum Signatures" not "Domestic Partnership Law In Washington". I support your right to post your views (I also support gay rights), but this subject has become a significant distraction from the main topic.
-
The legislature represents people in their votes and decisions. If we take argument further then our votes for who is in legislation should be made public since it is part of that process and ensures we make a public stand on who we voted for.
I think this is wrong. Especially in our political climate where the intimidation and smear is becoming strong form of political activity.
I see no reason not to ask for validation information on signitures and for this to be tested and confidentially validated by either side.
I do think it is wrong to give out contact information and location to special interests so they can use this for their own purposes.
-
There is no first amendment right to a petition process to get a state law referred to the ballot. The State of Washington decides whether, and how, to set up such a process.
In this case, the state said "We will have a petition process, but, in order to get a law, duly passed by the elected legislature and signed by the governer, referred to the ballot for vote, we need a certain number of people who are WILLING TO PUT THEIR NAMES ON A PUBLIC PETITION for it." Being willing to publicly stand up for something is different than stepping into a voting booth and casting an anonymous ballot. That was expressly part of the policy here.
You can disagree with that as a matter of policy, but it's not a constitutional issue. The folks who want this on the ballot, but don't want to face the consequences of standing up publicly for their opinions are betraying that they don't really care enough to justify putting their issue on the ballot.
-
The gentleman who initiated the petition gave the best reasons for making the petitions open to the public. He did not like the feeling of being known but if the shoe was on the other foot as it has been in the past. He would like to know who signed petitions to keep certain religions, social groups and political groups as illegal if he were members of that group. It has been my experience the vary thing he feared was what happened to gays with discrimination in jobs, housing and social services.
Ralph
-
I am very dissappointed that the majority of commentors have used this forum to demonize those that oppose them, promote an agenda seperate from the topic at hand, and pointlessly debate that existing law is the way it is and that's that.
Apparently, many commentors would not mind having their names published for the petitions they sign, and that's fine. What about people who don't chose that for themselves? What about the gay man who isn't out to everyone he knows and works with and doesn't want his name made public, but wants to support the cause? Should he have to make that choice?
The larger debate is how can we make democracy function better in all cases where petitions are involved, not just gay marriage issues. If nothing else, public records of petitions signatures would harm democracy because more people simply wouldn't participate.
-
"Demonize those that oppose them." That is exactly the problem with our society, people don't understand the difference between universal rights or ethical concepts and concepts based on faith or hate. They also don't understand the difference between inclusive and exclusive viewpoints, and that the medium between them is not cultural objectivity.
This is not about chocolate ice cream versus vanilla and your right to like one or the other. The issue is more akin to one groups attempt to ban chocolate ice cream for all. By proxy people with the viewpoint that gay marriage should not be allowed, demonize by promoting and advocating this exclusive view.
A free democracy is one that has the capacity to defend a signer of a public petition from harm. People signing petitions and advocating their views in private is not freedom, it is the lack of it!
-
Scott,
I think that your statement speaks to greater issues, of which petition signer privacy and, specifically, the gay rights debate are symbolic of.
In practice, the majority rules in a democracy, sometimes at the expense of the minority. As a democratic society and realizing this we choose to counter by requiring a super majority to change certain fundatmental laws, like The Constitution.
I understand your concerns about people acting privately to reduce the rights of certain classes, however, I don't think there is a real basis for alarm. Follow my logic: a proposed law (like anti-gay rights legislation) will only be executed if the majority agrees. And if the majority agrees then what is the benefit of making the names public? Not public pressure. Making names public only provides an opportunity for others to confront the petition signers and, more often than not, results in personal attacks when the issue is polarizing.
I believe proposed legislation should be debated in the public forum based on the strength of it's ideas. After that, the majority of voters can rule as to whether it should be enacted as law.
I realize this is sometimes difficult, but it's important to have a certain amount of faith in the potential for humanity to do the right thing, eventually, even if it takes time and energy. I would offer examples ranging from the historic outlaw of slavery to the recent Oregon law against bullying in schools for any reason including sexual orientation.
-Sean
-
I do not understand the conflict. Allow people to designate on the petition whether or not they agree to have their names public. The issue is where you draw the line. We have, until now, chosen to draw the line at the voting booth. It could just as easily have been drawn at the petition. Wherever the line is drawn it will be arbitrary. Who you vote for is just as much a free speech isssue as it is a political statement. Any argument for making petition signatures public apply equally to making voter preference for candidates and ballot measures public. Its not an "either or" proposition. Given the ability to quickly create databases and use this information to challenge, intimidate, or even contact people, the public access law needs to be revisited.
-
Interesting, how many people are on this discussion under pseudonyms. They like their anonymity, but anonymity on petition signatures? Not so much...
-
Comments are now closed.
I take the responsibility to sign petitions seriously. Before I sign I want to know who is funding/driving the initiative. I'm politically involved so I tend to have an idea of who's with me and who's against me. I've worked for my own right to be equal and I know that my party affiliation is public, as well as my frequency of voting. I am fine with that.
It doesn't surprise me that folks who are anti-equality and hate relationship parity would want to stay in the closet about their signature--one that denies equality to their neighbors. I can absolutely understand why they would want to hide their bigotry by pushing for the signature pages not to be made public. They should be ashamed of themselves. The obvious parallel that comes to my mind is that of the white robes and hoods of the KKK...Trying to hush who signs the petitions is just masking hate another way. Come out! Show yourselves. And maybe, just maybe, open your hearts and minds by hearing who we are and a little bit about our lives and love. The world may just become a bit smaller...