Questions by Supreme Court justices indicated at a hearing Wednesday that the Court probably will not support the right of initiative or referendum petition signers to remain anonymous. The Washington State case, Doe v. Reed, expresses the fear of opponents of same sex unions that referendum signers would find their names published on the Internet and, thereafter, subjected to harassment.
In fact, some same sex union proponents expressly announced intentions to put referendum signers' names on the Internet and to encourage "uncomfortable conversations" with them. Justice Antonin Scalia, hearing about this possibility, expressed skepticism and pointed out that democracy requires "civic courage".
Allow me to express my skepticism about placing such expectations on ordinary citizens. Maybe ballot votes should be made public, too? Also, votes within juries? Show a little "civic courage," people!
When I served as Secretary of State of Washington in the late 70s I opposed publication of petition signers' names because of the potential to intimidate citizens and to chill public participation. The current case confirms my fears. It was not brought idly, but out of genuine fear of retaliation.
A good argument obviously can be made that signing a petition is a public act, like sending money to a campaign, and doesn't rise to the privacy protection afforded voting or juries. However, I doubt that signers are aware of this when they write down their names and places of employment. In today's suit, the aggrieved party is predominantly conservative; another day it is almost sure to be liberal. Either way, privacy takes a beating.
If you believe that Washington and a number of other states have altogether too many legislative decisions made at the ballot box, then you may not mind the unintended consequence of reducing interest in direct democracy.
However, intimidating signers of petitions with the prospect of "uncomfortable conversations" once their names are made public seems like a perverse and unseemly way to restrain the abuse of direct democracy. But it is a very good way to increase--yet again--public alienation from the political process.
Leave a comment