There Should Be No Constitutional Right For Anonymity Of Petition Signers
Should the names of those who signed a petition seeking a vote to overturn Washington’s domestic partner rights be made known to the public? The United States Supreme Court took up this case today. I feel that when one lobbies in any fashion for the government to take an action that then can become public knowledge. The consequences of using clout and money to lobby in private runs counter to the larger openness that our government should strive to maintain. The same holds true for the individual who signs a petition concerning a heated issue.
This is not so much a conservative vs. liberal court case as much as it is one of strict adherence to higher ideals that we should not run from as a democracy. If one can not stand in the light of day to their convictions that they petition the government about, then perhaps there is a problem with the position that they are privately taking. It should be remembered John Hancock used large bold script when signing the Declaration of Independence, so large in fact that ”…fat George can read it without his spectacles.” That should be the model of our convictions today. If we can not stand by our views, then they need not be used for darker nefarious reasons that we are ashamed of to be printed in the press, or seen in the public square.
Justice Antonin Scalia, using history, sarcasm and political taunts, laid down a barrage of objections Wednesday to a plea that the Supreme Court create a new constitutional right of anonymity for individuals who sign petitions to get policy measures onto election ballots. When he was finished, the strong impression was that it might be exceedingly hard to gather a five-vote majority to establish such a right, even though the plea got the fervent support of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and some implied help from Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The oral argument was in John Doe # 1, et al., v. Reed, et al. (09-559).
Declaring that the rough-and-tumble of democracy is not for the faint-hearted, what Scalia referred to as the “touchy, feely” sensitivity of some political activists, the Justice said “you can’t run a democracy” with political activity behind a First Amendment shroud. “You are asking us to enter into a whole new field,” Scalia told James Bopp Jr., the lawyer for Washington State signers of an anti-gay rights petition. Politics, the Justice went on, “takes a certain amount of civic courage. The First Amendment does not protect you from civic discourse — or even from nasty phone calls.”
The petition-signers represented by Bopp have argued that disclosure of their names and other identifying information they put on petitions will subject them to harassment, and even to violence. The lawyer told the Justices, for example, that one of the chief sponsors of the anti-gay marriage referendum in Washington had his family sleep in the living room to protect them from retaliation. Bopp’s plea clearly resonated with Justice Alito, but his was the only voice on the bench explicitly in support of the claim to anonymity.
But Justice Scalia was, if anything, a more aggressive advocate for that view of the case. “A petition-signer,” he said, “is taking part in the legislative process.” He suggested that there was no court case holding that the First Amendment shields “activity that consists of the process of legislation.” In fact, Scalia said, “for the first century of our existence” even casting a ballot was done in public, and ballots were of different colors so everyone could know how an individual had voted in a given contest.
Solly: where do I say that we should end financial disclosure? Nowhere. If you were not so busy trying to suggest that I was a biggot, or that I wanted to protect biggots, you might have noticed that. But your shallow post illustrates my thinking. Rather than debate the substance of my comments, you–because it is the most your intellect allows, apparently–can only attack my character. My opinion is that there is a real difference between giving money and simply signing a petition. I recently signed a petition against “unfair” swipe fees from credit card companies. Should the credit card company be able to access the petition, see my name, and decide to cancel my account? I think that’s a tough call. Do you want any potential employers to be able to search the petitions you have signed?
Now, if the court wanted to say some petitions are different than others, I’d be willing to listen to those argments, but I cannot support the idea that aggressive political groups be given one more way to intimidate citizens into silence. Proposing a bill for consideration begins debate; it does not enact legislation.
Perhaps Roberts and Alito are interested in common sense and privacy. The public’s right to intimidate is not absolute.
So people should be able to sign a petition to get an initiative on the ballot to take away other peoples’ civil rights, and it should be secret. So if we started a petition to deny Republicans the right to marry and reproduce, because obviously they are not able to make rational decisions, and we submitted them to a Democratic Secretary of State, and he/she said fine and dandy, no media or citizen should have the right to see if those petition signatures are valid or even exist. And all we hear from the republicans are no public financing of campaigns is needed, just disclosure disclosure disclosure
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/93689-campaign-finance-bill-has-gop-wary ““Republicans are in favor of disclosure,” McConnell told Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press” at the time. In fact, he said, the more disclosure, the better.” But now Mr. Patrick says although the supreme court says money is speech, and corporations are people, we can’t make bigots disclose they gave money to campaigns to take civil rights away from people because they might get dirty looks. If they get harassed or threatened they should report it to the police. If they get boycotted they should be willing to stand up for their convictions, or not get involved. They still have the right to be a bigot anonymously in the biggest closet in America, the voting booth. How about nominating petitions, should they be kept secret too, so that republicans can’t go in and check to see if democrats have enough valid signatures to get on the ballot? Are activist judges Roberts and Alito trying to find a right to secrecy in the constitution?
I think it is very important for people to be able to voice their political views safely. And signing a petition is among the mildest of forms of expression. In Wisconsin, the personal data of anyone who contributes $20 to a campaign or political action group is collected, digitized, and sold to whoever requests the information. After the battles over prop 8 in California, people came under harassment when their names appeared on these lists; they were bothered at work and at home. I’m sure you might think that when people don’t agree with you they should be “held accountable.” The question is held accountable to whom—their boss, the union, their neighbors, the press…where does it end for someone signing a petition?
Consider the Federalist Papers, for example. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay Richard Henry Lee and Samuel Adams saw the great value in being able to express their opinion without being subject to personal attacks. They wanted people to debate the merits of ideas, not personalities. I think this is something we should embrace, not retard. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Winfield Scott also valued this anonymity.
The only reason to require disclosure of signatures and the data associated with them is to suppress political expression. And lastly, since I assume this data would be available retroactively as well as henceforth, you would ensure that I was actually the one who signed the petition? Where would one find the cancelled check?
Stalin would have loved this disclosure, Hittler, too. What about those who attend political gatherings? Should their names be taken down–of course who wouldn’t like to know the names of the people throwing bottles at the police in Arizona this week?