Wednesday
Apr282010
Supreme Court Weighs Release Of Petition Signatures On Civil Union Law
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 1:27PM
The Supreme Court heard arguments from citizens of Washington state Wednesday who had signed a petition challenging Washington's civil union law. The petition had garnered enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot, and 53% of voters approved the law. Pro-civil union groups then requested copies of the signed petitions under Washington's public-record law, and signers sued to stop the release.
The signers argued that the act of signing a petition is a form of political speech and association, and, like voting, it should be protected. However, the Justices seemed skeptical that all petitions and similar acts should be protected from release by the First Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, noting that her home state of New York makes petition signatures public, asked whether signatures to get a candidate on a ballot would similarly be protected. She then asked whether a government agency could choose to release to the public a letter from citizens urging a policy change.
The signers' harshest criticism came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who pointed out several times during the 1-hour argument that America for a long time used public voting in elections.
"Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," Scalia said.
The attorney general for Washington, arguing in support of the disclosure, admitted that making the names public might discourage some people from signing, but he compared the records to campaign contribution records, which are public for most sizable donations.
Only Justice Samuel Alito seemed seriously concerned about the release, asking the lawyers whether the government could ask for and then disclose the phone numbers, race and religion of petition signers.
Several of the Justices implied that while they would not favor a blanket rule prohibiting disclosure of the signatures, they might be sympathetic to future challenges to specific releases. For example, if a someone could present evidence of real threats against signers, a court might keep the names secret. Today in court the lawyers noted general threats of harassment and boycotts but did not point to any specific, credible threats of violence.
The Court will decide the case by this summer.
The signers argued that the act of signing a petition is a form of political speech and association, and, like voting, it should be protected. However, the Justices seemed skeptical that all petitions and similar acts should be protected from release by the First Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, noting that her home state of New York makes petition signatures public, asked whether signatures to get a candidate on a ballot would similarly be protected. She then asked whether a government agency could choose to release to the public a letter from citizens urging a policy change.
The signers' harshest criticism came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who pointed out several times during the 1-hour argument that America for a long time used public voting in elections.
"Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," Scalia said.
The attorney general for Washington, arguing in support of the disclosure, admitted that making the names public might discourage some people from signing, but he compared the records to campaign contribution records, which are public for most sizable donations.
Only Justice Samuel Alito seemed seriously concerned about the release, asking the lawyers whether the government could ask for and then disclose the phone numbers, race and religion of petition signers.
Several of the Justices implied that while they would not favor a blanket rule prohibiting disclosure of the signatures, they might be sympathetic to future challenges to specific releases. For example, if a someone could present evidence of real threats against signers, a court might keep the names secret. Today in court the lawyers noted general threats of harassment and boycotts but did not point to any specific, credible threats of violence.
The Court will decide the case by this summer.
Reader Comments