What are your privacy expecations when you sign a petition?

Do you expect that your signature might be made public? If it were made public, would that change your mind about signing?

A federal judge in Washington recently decided that signatures on a ballot proposal would be off limits to the public. Some groups claimed they wanted to publish them so people could verify the accuracy. Some groups requested the signatures so they could contact the signers and discuss their views or post them on a website.

What do you think?

I'll try to find a story to link to later -- heard it on the radio.

[L.Jane]

I think I would like them to be private. It makes me nervous signing things becuase I never know whose hands my signature is going to end up in. If I really believe in a cause, I am going to stand up for it, I just don't like the not knowing whose hands I'm putting my signature/name in.

[scrub-jay]

I would like them to be private, but then again, the point of a signature is that I, as an individual, support that issue. If signatures are required -- then I accept the risk that someone is going to ask to verify that the signatures are unique people. I only sign petitions of issues that I feel strongly about and do not mind stating publicly.

[MarissaNicole]

I try to be careful about what I sign because I think that some people sign things without reading them. For that reason I don't think I would mind if signatures are public (based on what I have signed thus far in my life).

Part of me thinks they should be public (at least as political candidate signatures) because I believe in a certain amount of openness in government... and I do not like the idea of people signing petitions in support of a candidate and then being able to keep it private. What is to say that that person isn't signing petitions for more than one candidate.

I guess since signing petitions are optional I can see why some people would want them public.
And even if they aren't open to the public it doesn't mean that the politicians don't have access to it.

For some reason I would think that petitions would be something that could be FOIA-ed?

[DCJenn]

I don't think you should be signing petitions or anything else for that matter without reading and understanding what you are signing.

I don't think that it's a particular bad concept for signatures to be verified in certain situations.

That said, it's one of those deals where it's a slippery slope of bad, bad possibilities if people use signing petitions as a means for some political gain.

People are complex and can sign petitions for any number of reasons. Maybe they're trying to skew a result. Maybe because they truly believe it's important. Maybe because (like Dr. Horrible) it was a cute girl asking for the signature.

Should somebody really be 'outed' for signing a petition that he/she really didn't give a rats ass about because they wanted to meet the person asking for their signature?

I don't know, in other words.

[GrayMatterWife]

There is no legal right to privacy of signature on a petition that arises from the federal Consitution or a state constitution. The right to privacy is not the right for something to remain secret; it is the right to privacy from state interference with the person's fundamental rights. Besides that, it's completely assinine and unreasonable to expect your signature to remain private--the whole point of a petition is to collect signatures of people willing to represent their position on an issue. That's what makes it different from an anonymous poll.

Are you, by chance, referring to Wash judge's decision continue the injunction of the Sec of State from releasing the names of the petitioners on a referendum to add a "protect marriage" amendment to the ballot? FWIW--if so, the judge's decision, I believe, was based on a First Amendment/freedom of expression issue, rather than a right to privacy, really. The judge was concerned that the party seeking the names--the people against the referendum--would use the list to harrass and abuse the petitioners, thereby "chilling free speech" (the judge's opinion would, of course, presume that a petition signature constitutes an expression of free speech). The judge didn't say the signatures couldn't be verified by the right authorities (the Office of the Sec of State). He just said that the signatures are not subject to publication pursuant to the public records law.

Also, FWIW, you asked for thoughts on what we think will happen... It's on appeal to the 9th Circuit, along with a request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the placement of the referendum on the ballot. I think the district court will be reversed. The 9th Circuit is extremely liberal and is completely willing to throw the First Amendment overboard when it thinks that the speech being sought to be protected isn't "their" kind of speech. And then it will get appealed to the Supremes, who will reverse the 9th Circuit, like they usually do because the 9th Cir screws stuff up. Who knows what will happen to the ballot iniative in the meantime. I presume the 9th will issue the preliminary injunction enjoining the adding of it to the ballot. I guess whether that prevents its addition will depend on how fast the Supremes would be willing to hear the appeal. But that's just a guess. Could be completely wrong, of course.

More than anything else, this is a great example of how leftist social agenda-setters use the courts to try to stop issues from being decided by the PEOPLE. God forbid we put the issue to a vote. Those "people"--the masses--might actually assert themselves in an attempt to self-govern and utilize liberal democracy. That's all the ballot iniative is asking for--a chance to vote on it. But think what happened to them on the gay marriage issue on the ballot in California last year. They lost that, in the year of RECORD turnout in a very liberal state. They worry that if the people actually get to express its will, they'll lose. So they are (1) seeking to obtain the names to hold people out for public ridicule, harrassment, etc.; and (2) are trying to prevent the issue from being voted on, period. Liberals should spend more time trying to change the hearts and minds of the voters so they can win the law to their side legitimately, and less time trying to hijack the law away from the electorate. And conservatives should never adopt these methods, or I'm jumping ship from them, too. Having conservative judges dictate the law over the will of the voters is no better than liberal judges doing it.

[GrayMatterWife]

If interested, here's the case I was writing about. But, I am not even sure that this is the same case to which original poster referred.

And, NO, I am not THIS much of a nerd. Give me a break...federal law clerks track interesting issues like this. It is our version of "Dungeons and Dragons"--all encompassing obsession. Oh, wait. That DOES make me a nerd. Grrr.

__________________________________________________ ____


Federal court shields names of Wash. petition signers

By The Associated Press
09.11.09
OLYMPIA, Wash. — A federal judge yesterday ordered the state of Washington to keep shielding the identities of people who signed petitions to force a vote on expanded benefits for gay couples.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma granted the preliminary injunction involving petitions for Referendum 71 while a related case moves forward on the constitutionality of the state public-records act. (See other documents in the case.)

The referendum, sponsored by a group called Protect Marriage Washington, asks voters to approve or reject the “everything but marriage” domestic-partnership law that state lawmakers passed earlier this year.

In his ruling, Settle said he was “not persuaded that waiver of one’s fundamental right to anonymous political speech is a prerequisite for participation in Washington’s referendum process.”

Brian Zylstra, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, said that the judge’s decision was “a step away from open government.”

“When people sign a referendum or initiative petition, they are trying to change state law,” he said. “We believe that changing state law should be open to public view.”

A spokeswoman for the state attorney general’s office, which is representing Reed in the case, says the office plans to appeal Settle’s ruling. Spokeswoman Janelle Guthrie says Attorney General Rob McKenna will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the decision on a fast track, and in the meantime, he wants the appeals court to lift the preliminary injunction.

At a hearing before Settle last week, attorneys for Protect Marriage had argued that referendum signers’ names and addresses should be exempt from the public-records disclosure law because release of the information would put them at risk of harassment, amounting to an unconstitutional infringement of free-speech rights.

Referendum campaign organizer Larry Stickney said he had already been subjected to threats and harassment for his involvement in the effort. The campaign also said it had heard from supporters who didn’t want to sign the petition for fear of reprisals.

However, Assistant Attorney General Jim Pharris told the judge that Protect Marriage hadn’t shown significant harm beyond rude comments or phone calls — nothing that would “be appropriate to overturning the state’s strong tradition for open government.”

In his ruling, Settle agreed with the state that there must be measures in place to prevent referendum fraud. But because of the secretary of state’s process of verifying signatures, “at this time the court is not persuaded that full public disclosure of referendum petitions is necessary,” the judge said.

Protect Marriage turned in nearly 138,000 signatures in July, with 121,780 being accepted. That was about 1,200 more than the minimum required to qualify for the ballot.

Two gay-rights groups, WhoSigned.Org and KnowThyNeighbor.org, previously said they would post the names online, which sparked the legal action to keep them private.

Protect Marriage was unsuccessful in an effort to keep the names of its political donors secret when the state Public Disclosure Commission ruled last month that donors weren’t exempt from campaign-finance laws requiring disclosure.

Protect Marriage Attorney Stephen Pidgeon said he was still deciding whether to appeal that decision. But in the meantime, he said that he was happy that the names of those who signed the referendum petitions would not be released.

“The court has said, and said rightly, that the ability to participate, even anonymously, in the political process is a long and respected right in the United States,” he said.

The legal battle to keep the referendum off the Nov. 3 ballot ended Sept. 9 when supporters of expanded rights for domestic partners said they wouldn’t appeal a Thurston County Superior Court judge’s refusal to block the vote.

Washington Families Standing Together chairwoman Anne Levinson said the group would now focus on a campaign to ensure the law is retained by voters.

After passage by the Legislature, the law was supposed to take effect July 26, but the referendum campaign put it on hold. Now, it will take effect only if approved by voters.

If the law is rejected at the polls, previously enacted legislation on domestic partnerships would remain in place.

More than 5,900 domestic partnership registrations have been filed in Washington since the first law took effect in July 2007.

I guess I always assumed that any petitions I signed were public b/c the signatures had to be validated. It never occurred to me that it might / should be private.

Yes, that was the case to which I was referring.

There was a similar case in Oregon 2007 with a group wanting to publicize signatures for a referendum on domestic partnership.

The Washington issue prompted the topic on the radio show. When I heard it introduced, my first thought was that the signatures are public record. They have to be verified and maybe proven to be verified if someone asks, right? I would not expect that the state would keep my name private or not release it if properly requested. However, I never thought about someone posting my name on a website along with anyone else who signed a certain petition. Given that campaign contribution info can be found on-line (see what your neighbor gave!) it makes sense that the signatures could be too. There are some campaign donation issues related to that referendum as well. I don't think it should be private (or protected speech or whatever) and it wouldn't keep me from signing a petition but I don't like the tactic of public shaming.

Who knows what will happen to the ballot iniative in the meantime.

The AP article states that the legal battle to keep the referendum off the November ballot has ended.

It is our version of "Dungeons and Dragons"--all encompassing obsession. Oh, wait. That DOES make me a nerd. Grrr.

Don't be hatin on ma D&D now...

[GrayMatterWife]

Don't be hatin on ma D&D now...

Sorry! Didn't mean to do you wrong...

[Pollyanna]

I guess I always assumed that any petitions I signed were public b/c the signatures had to be validated. It never occurred to me that it might / should be private.

Me too!!

[Rapunzel]

Just signed a petition.

I made really sure that I knew exactly WHAT I was signing before I did so.

I expect that if I sign my name for or against something I will have to stand by my decision. In this case the issue may become a class action lawsuit - and my signature may be used in court in some manner.

I guess what I'm saying is that any time I sign my name to ANYTHING I expect it to become public in some way.

[Rapunzel]

At a hearing before Settle last week, attorneys for Protect Marriage had argued that referendum signers’ names and addresses should be exempt from the public-records disclosure law because release of the information would put them at risk of harassment, amounting to an unconstitutional infringement of free-speech rights.

Referendum campaign organizer Larry Stickney said he had already been subjected to threats and harassment for his involvement in the effort. The campaign also said it had heard from supporters who didn’t want to sign the petition for fear of reprisals.

While I expect my signature to be public when I sign to anything (and I mean anything - including receipts) I do understand the sentiment above. I have two family friends who were targeted by national groups and could be found on internet "hit lists" after the California election last year. One of them is in finance and the other is a physician. And, while neither of them regret their political activity - they definitely DID become targets on a personal and professional level when they participated in the political process.