Interesting. So, does a petition singer not only sign up to sppt. the petition but sign up for possible harassment as well? I have to agree with the SC back in the 50’s disclosing these lists to non-officials whom vet the petition for legal signatures is not valid.

Any thoughts on this?


by George Will

SEATTLE -- Conservatives here, a droll minority, say that under this city's quota system, when a conservative enters the city, one already here is required to leave. They also say Washington is actually two states: There is what you can see from atop this city's Space Needle -- meaning, this liberal city -- and there is everything else, extending to the Oregon, Idaho and Canadian borders.

On Tuesday, Washington residents will vote in a referendum that has national significance because of a controversy about disclosing the names and addresses of those who signed petitions to trigger the referendum. Disclosure threatens the right to privacy, which is under assault by a spreading movement -- call it thuggish liberalism -- that uses intimidation to suppress political participation.


The referendum is on a new state law that some say establishes same-sex marriage. This is a matter about which people differ. What is, however, unambiguously wrong is the attempt by some supporters of the law to force disclosure of the names and addresses of the 138,000 people who signed the petition bringing about the referendum. This can have no other purpose than to make it possible to harass those signers.

Those favoring disclosure say it is mandatory under the state's Public Records Act. If so, that act is unconstitutional.

In the 1950s, Alabama tried to compel the NAACP to disclose its membership list. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that disclosure would burden the freedoms of expression and association that the First Amendment protects.

Advocates of compelled disclosure predictably invoke Louis Brandeis' axiom that sunlight is the best disinfectant. But what is the supposed infection?

The Supreme Court has held that disclosure requirements serve three government interests: They provide information about the flow of political money, they deter corruption and avoid the appearance thereof by revealing large contributions, and they facilitate enforcement of contribution limits.

These pertain only to financial information in candidate elections. These cannot justify compelled disclosures regarding referendums because referendums raise no issues of officials' future performance in office -- being corruptly responsive to financial contributors. The only relevant information about referendums is in the text of the propositions.

In 1973, Washington's secretary of state ruled that signing an initiative or referendum petition is "a form of voting" and violating voters' privacy could have adverse "political ramifications" for those signing.

In 2009, some advocates of disclosure plan to put signers' names on the Internet in order to force "uncomfortable" conversations.


more at-

RealClearPolitics - Liberals Using Disclosure to Intimidate

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Perhaps Republicans should propose an amendment making it a felony, with a minimum of 10 years in prison for anyone contacting someone based on this information.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I think there is a difference between a private sector organization that advocates public policies and a referendum that actually presents public policies for a vote.

It also depends on what is meant by "intimidation". Some people don't have an argument and may feel that a valid rebuttal is a form of intimidation simply because they ran out of logic and reason.

Besides, on the issue of same sex marriage, why should any citizens of any State not have the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States (IV,2).

I feel that a Constitutional referendum of that type is a back door attempt at Theocracy since our elected representatives to government are prohibited from legislating purely religious moral laws. Instead of denying and disparaging the Ninth Amendment privilege and immunity of some of our citizenry, those religionists should be advocating for a repeal of all laws but Ten as a form of limiting government and maintaining their religious credibility. How many of those same religionists can claim to pass any religious morals test?