The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled today that another federal judge relied on “incorrect legal standard” in withholding from public disclosure petitions placing Referendum 71 on the ballot.
You can see the 9th’s initial order, right here.
A temporary injunction blocking release of the petitions was lifted but the court also said that lifting would be pending final resolution of an appeal by Protect Marriage Washington, which brought the R-71 to voters seeking to kill the recently-enacted “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law for homosexual and senior couples.
The court stated it is working to produce a final, more detailed decision.
And, as noted by Jason Mercier at the conservative Washington Policy Center, a ruling yesterday by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the release of initiative petition sheets from previous measures, many of them initiatives brought forth by Tim Eyman, will likely mean quick resolution to that case, too. Hicks’s ruling was based on the case in front of the 9th Circuit, and he had stated in court that his ruling would be in line with that court’s decision.
*UPDATE* - The Washington Secretary of State’s Office has a blog post up now on this, over here, in which Elections Director Nick Handy states “the winner here is open government.”
October 15th, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Good. That would have set a very bad precedent.
I hope that all of this has helped inform voters that an initiative is similar to legislation. In signing it, we’re signing on to a piece of legislation. It’s not like a petition to bring back our favorite flavor of ice cream. Initiatives are direct legislation from the people and we need to take them seriously in signing or declining.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:56 PM
I’ll take it one step further than Suzie Q. Initiatives and Referendums are legislation — legislation drafted and co-sponsored by voters.
Voters wouldn’t tolerate legislators in Olympia hiding co-sponsorship of a bill, so why would a group sponsoring an initiative or referendum ask the courts to issue a restraining order preventing public review of signatures gathered during the ballot initiative/referendum process?
October 15th, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Agreed that signatures should be public - but I’d have a problem releasing addresses or phone numbers.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Don’t worry,
there are already laws against harassment.
If what you’re signing makes you so afraid that you need secrecy,
it may be a sign that you should reconsider your view.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Odyssey - without the address, how would you verify if their a legit Washington voter?
October 17th, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Elizabeth says: “Voters wouldn’t tolerate legislators in Olympia hiding co-sponsorship of a bill, so why would a group sponsoring an initiative or referendum ask the courts to issue a restraining order preventing public review of signatures gathered during the ballot initiative/referendum process?”
EXCELLENT! My compliments on a concise summary of why this judge was totally wrong in his decision to allow those who signed the Ref 71 petitions to run and hide like snakes under a rock.
Elizabeth, should you decide to run for something you have my vote!