PD Editorial: Signer beware

When one signs a petition in support of a ballot initiative is there an expectation of privacy?

In other words, is that individual correct in assuming his or her name and contact information — which is obligatory with such petitions — will be kept a secret and is exempt from state open records laws?

We don’t believe so.

Secrecy is an expectation and an entitlement in the voting booth. But we don’t believe there should be a presumption of privacy when one signs a ballot initiative, no more than one should expect that their identity will be kept a secret after sending a signed letter to city hall opposing a building project. That correspondence becomes a part of the public record and the public dialogue. So should the names on petitions.

At the same time, we bemoan the fact that some groups want access to the information on petitions for harassment and intimidation purposes.

This is the situation in Washington state where voters on Tuesday cast ballots on an initiative concerning gay marriage. Opponents of Referendum 71 sued to get the state to disclose the names and addresses of the 138,000 people who signed the petition putting the measure on the ballot. They argued that the names should be disclosed under Washington’s Public Records Act.

It’s clear why they want them. They seek to expose the signers to uncomfortable social confrontations, possibly with colleagues and neighbors. One group, Knowthyneighbor.org, has posted on the Web the names of those who signed similar petitions in other states including Florida and Massachusetts.

The Washington case includes affidavits from people who said they’ve felt threatened for taking the position they did on the measure.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court which, for the time being, let stand a lower court ruling ordering Washington’s secretary of state not to disclose the names. But we don’t see how such a ruling stands up on the merits of the case or in the face of common sense.

Disclosure laws do not carve out an exemption for certain individuals to influence the legislative process and remain anonymous. Given the state of our politics, few have as much influence over state law these days as the signers of initiatives.

Yet the courts would create such an exemption if this ruling is allowed to stand. It shouldn’t.

Creating bad law is no solution to stopping the intimidation of those who exercise their First Amendment right to sign a petition. Greater public exposure and rejection of these tactics, and a reminder that turnabout is the unfortunate by-product of such politics, might, however.