The signature privacy conundrum

Utah

See also: Utah Ethics Commission Initiative (2010)

In April 2010, attorneys working on behalf of the Utah Ethics Commission Initiative (2010) filed a lawsuit in federal court asserting that Utah's laws that allow members of the public to access copies of signed petition sheets after those sheets have been turned in to election officials is unconstitutional. On April 15, 2010 Federal Judge Dale Kimball approved the restraining order and instructed the Lt. Governor and county clerks of the state not to release voter information. A hearing was set for April 28, 2010 to determine if release of the information violate Utahan's privacy. On June 2, 2010 U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups issued a preliminary injunction to keep the names private. According to Waddoups the injunction will remain until SCOTUS rules on Doe v. Reed in Washington. "The questions to be answered in John Doe #1 v. Reed bear upon and will very likely directly control the ruling to be issued in the present case," said Waddoups.

Washington

Referendum 71

See also: Washington Referendum 71 (2009) and Doe v. Reed

Doe v. Reed is a court case that stemmed from the November 3, 2009 vote on Washington Referendum 71.

Referendum 71 was an effort launched by the Washington Values Alliance to overturn Senate Bill 5688 through the veto referendum process. The official campaign in favor of placing Referendum 71 on the ballot was Protect Marriage Washington. SB 5688 grants state registered domestic partners in Washington all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples. Referendum 71 was approved by voters with a 53.15% vote. The law went into effect as previously planned.

Doe v. Reed addresses the issue of whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is a private, political act or whether the names of those signers can be made public. The United States Supreme Court heard arguments on April 28, 2010.

On June 24, 2010 the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 enforcing Washington's Public Records Act; making petition signatures public.

On July 20 anti-gay marriage activists renewed their efforts to ban the release of R-71 petitions. The case was temporarily dismissed. According to reports, they could refile once the United States Supreme Court released the case back to the U.S. District Court in Tacoma. According to the federal court motion, they asked for either a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to block the release of the petitions.

On September 7, 2010, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks lifted the ban on releasing initiative petitions under the state’s Public Records Act. His decision, however did not allow the release of Referendum 71 petitions.

On October 3, 2011, the U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Washington heard oral arguments in the case. On October 17, 2011 U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that the petitions can be released. Settle said, only a few examples of indecent statements or conversations were presented and that there was only speculation that the issues were connected to the measure or the release of petitioner information. He went on to add that disclosure would become the exception, rather than the rule, if just a few instances of harassment were used as the standard for preventing the release of names.

Eyman initiatives

On October 13, 2009 Eyman filed a lawsuit to block the release of petition signatures relating to approximately 11 initiatives (including this years I-1033). Eyman argues that the signers' identities are protected by the freedom of speech. According to reports a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in Thurston County Superior Court.

Judge Richard Hicks of the Thurston County Superior Court granted a temporary restraining order on October 15, 2009.

In early September 2010, Thurston County Judge Richard Hicks dissolved an injunction on the release of the signatures. A restraining order had previously been imposed after Tim Eyman filed a lawsuit after debate began regarding to the release of 2009's Referendum 71 petition signatures and a political consultant asked for copies of the signatures. The lawsuit requested blocking the release of petition signatures relating to approximately 11 initiatives (including 2009's I-1033).

In reaction to the news, Eyman said, "We were gratified that the Secretary of State said that they will inform the requestor that he cannot use any of this information for commercial purposes, which was one of the concerns we had in the lawsuit."

Although the restraining order was dismissed, Judge Hicks has not dismissed the legal case. The case was dismissed in November 2010. In reaction to the dismissal, Eymann said, "We’ll continue to monitor the federal lawsuit and pursue other ways to counter this injustice. For 95 years in Washington state, petition signers’ personal information was protected. Let’s hope there comes a day when we can return to that common sense policy."

See also

• Washington Referendum 71 (2009) - signature privacy lawsuits
  • Doe v. Reed
• Utah Ethics Commission Initiative (2010) - signature privacy lawsuit

References

This ballot measure article needs to be updated.

---

This ballot law article needs to be updated.

---