Voters Will Soon Have "Direct Line" To President Obama

Petitions have been used for centuries among Americans taking a stand on issues that matter to them. With the new age of technology, however,  petitions have become even more popular and can be even more effective.

The White House today announced a new way to petition the federal government on an array of issues. 

A soon-to-be-live website, entitled “We The People,” will provide voters with an online platform to directly speak to the White House about issues of importance.

Upon its launch, anyone will be able to create or sign a petition on the WhiteHouse.gov website. If a petition receives enough signatures, the White House staff will review it and pass it along to Obama Administration policy experts who will issue an official response. According to the Associated Press, any petition that receives 5,000 signatures within 30 days of its launch would qualify for an official review.

President Obama will even answer some petitions himself, according to David Plouffe, Senior Advisor to the President.

“Throughout our history, Americans have used petitions to organize around issues they care about,” Plouffe wrote in an email blast this morning. “We the People gives you a new way to join together with others to ask your government to address a problem, change a policy, or take action on a range of issues.”

In a statement, Obama said the new service will give voters a “direct line to the White House on the issues and concerns that matter most to them.”

Click here to learn more about “We The People” and to be informed as soon as it is launched.

Supreme Court Rules Narrowly That Petition Signatures Not Secret

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.

The case is Doe v. Reed.