The Supreme Court today sidestepped the question of releasing signatures from a petition asking for a referendum on Washington state’s civil union law. Pro-civil union groups had asked for the names and addresses of everyone who had signed the petition, but signers argued the release would violate a First Amendment right to anonymous political speech and association.
In an opinion joined by six Justices, Chief Justice John Roberts declined to address specific threats against signers of this petition and instead ruled that, in general, the First Amendment does not prohibit releasing signatures supporting a petition. Roberts wrote that petition disclosure laws, like campaign finance disclosure laws, must be justified by the state, and in this case he accepted Washington’s argument that release of the names would help combat fraud and eliminate duplicate names and signatures by people who were not registered voters.
Roberts said that a lower court should be able to hear arguments over whether names on this particular petition should be released. Some signers have argued that they face possible retribution, including boycotts or violence, if their names are disclosed.
Unusually, several Justices wrote separately to give their opinions on the disclosure of these names while maintaining that the high court is correctly leaving the issue to the lower courts. Justice Samuel Alito said he thought the signers would likely prevail in the lower courts, while Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer said they thought the signers would not. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he did not think the Constitution supported a right to anonymous speech, noting that even voting in elections used to be public.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Court’s decision, arguing that disclosure would chill participation in democratic processes and that computer searches could adequately protect against mistakes and fraud.
Supreme Court Rules Narrowly That Petition Signatures Not Secret
In an opinion joined by six Justices, Chief Justice John Roberts declined to address specific threats against signers of this petition and instead ruled that, in general, the First Amendment does not prohibit releasing signatures supporting a petition. Roberts wrote that petition disclosure laws, like campaign finance disclosure laws, must be justified by the state, and in this case he accepted Washington’s argument that release of the names would help combat fraud and eliminate duplicate names and signatures by people who were not registered voters.
Roberts said that a lower court should be able to hear arguments over whether names on this particular petition should be released. Some signers have argued that they face possible retribution, including boycotts or violence, if their names are disclosed.
Unusually, several Justices wrote separately to give their opinions on the disclosure of these names while maintaining that the high court is correctly leaving the issue to the lower courts. Justice Samuel Alito said he thought the signers would likely prevail in the lower courts, while Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer said they thought the signers would not. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he did not think the Constitution supported a right to anonymous speech, noting that even voting in elections used to be public.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Court’s decision, arguing that disclosure would chill participation in democratic processes and that computer searches could adequately protect against mistakes and fraud.
The case is Doe v. Reed.