| HeraldNet - Snohomish County's online news source |
 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2010 6:23 am |
ADVERTISEMENT |
|||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
Local News 
|
||||||||||||
U.S. Supreme Court shields Referendum 71 signatures The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday barred the state from giving out the names of those who signed petitions for Referendum 71, a move that could keep identities of thousands of people secret for months as a heated legal fight runs its course.On an 8-1 vote, the court backed Justice Anthony Kennedy's decision on Monday to stay a lower court order that allowed the secretary of state to disclose the names of the 138,000 petition signers. Justice John Paul Stevens indicated he would have turned down the stay request. The high court said its order will remain in effect until the justices decide whether to involve themselves in this case. “I think it's a big win. The names and addresses and other personal information certainly won't be getting out before Election Day,” said Larry Stickney of Arlington, a leader of Protect Marriage Washington, which qualified the measure for the ballot. Referendum 71 asks voters to approve or reject the so-called “everything but marriage” law signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire earlier this year. It would give registered domestic partners the same rights, benefits and responsibilities under state law as married couples. While most domestic partners are gay and lesbian couples, under state law, opposite-gender seniors also can register as domestic partners. Protect Marriage Washington has been fighting the state to keep the names private. Its lawyers contend signers have a constitutional right to participate in politics in secret if they face a threat of harassment from political opponents. State attorneys contend the petitions are public records. They say signing a petition for a referendum or initiative that qualifies for a ballot is a legislative act and voters are entitled to know who is behind such measures. When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state last week, the group's lawyers rushed to Kennedy with a request for him to keep the ruling from taking effect. Protect Marriage Washington wanted time to petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. Its lawyers also pointed out they cannot prepare such a petition until the court of appeals issues its written opinion, which it had not done as of Tuesday. The Supreme Court action didn't surprise state lawyers, though they had hoped the majority of justices would not back Kennedy. “Our attorneys were disappointed,” said Janelle Guthrie, spokeswoman for Attorney General Rob McKenna. Secretary of State Sam Reed said Tuesday he agrees with the reasoning of the 9th Circuit and wants to see the issue clarified as to what his office can and cannot release. “The Supreme Court is simply preserving the status quo while opponents of disclosure get their full day in court, and we respect that,” Reed said in a statement. “We continue to support the view of the 9th Circuit and will do our very best to uphold the voters' desire for transparent and accountable government,” he said. Meanwhile Tuesday, in a separate but related case, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks maintained a temporary restraining order he issued last week barring the state from handing out names of people who signed petitions for the referendum and several initiatives sponsored by Tim Eyman of Mukilteo. Hicks said the competing principles of privacy and open government will “have to be reconciled not by a trial court judge in Thurston County, but by a higher court. “I think it's a very important issue and I'm glad it's drawn the attention that it has,” he said. The Associated Press contributed to this story. |
- Sorry, Hawkeye; M*A*S*H gets bowled over
- Former Whidbey student shot
- County archive software paid for but waiting for set-up
- Ruling expected on Sultan beating statement
- ‘Roadkill’ caucus seeks a voice for centrist Democrats
- Police seek witnesses in two accidents
- PAWS calls out for critter care-givers
- Boeing has a busy test schedule
- Ex-Boeing engineer jailed for espionage
- Morning mystery: What happened to House Bill 3181?
- Lynnwood sets height limit on grass: 8 inches
(10) - State Senate votes to toss I-960's tax-raising hurdle (9)
- School levies in Snohomish County all passing, Marysville bond failing (7)
- Schools do well in levy elections (6)
- A tidy lawn could be law in Lynnwood (4)
- County archive software paid for but waiting for set-up (3)
- Lynnwood makes law against too tall lawns (3)
- Two suspects sought in Everett shooting that injured two (3)
- Vote on school levies by Tuesday (3)
- Sorry, Hawkeye; M*A*S*H gets bowled over (2)
- Jackson girls outlast Meadowdale owdale
- OBT raises barre in children’s program
- Junior firefighters
- School levies passing
- Mavericks topple Wolfpack
- Get a second look at Second City Feb. 13
- Sports Briefs
- Warriors advance 11 to regional meet
- Arlington's Cascade Valley Hospital celebrates expansion, national award and 100 years of service
- Business Licences Feb. 2010
- Technology tips for launching your own business
- Business Events Feb. 2010
- Tech Talk: No excuse today for going without a Web site
- State already raising fees and rates that restrict business growth
- Some legislators again targeting people’s initiative petition rights
|
 
|
|
|
|
| TODAY'S TOP JOBS |
| View All Top Jobs |
| Top Cars |
|
| Top Homes |
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
|
|
|Contact Us
|Advertiser Services
|Home Delivery
|Newsstand Locations
|Classifieds
|Feedback
|About the Company
|Work@the Herald
|Site Map |
|
COMMENTS
Log in or register to post a new comment.
To read other terms and conditions, click here
I did not vote reject on R-71 out of hate. I, like I imagine most folks, do not hate gays. Because I oppose this measure I must "hate gays" or "Have deep down homosexual tendencies". These are the things that are said about people with differing views.
Check out the cost of this measure if it passes. Who is going to pay? The gays that benefit? I doubt it. I am tired of the gay lifestyle being forced down my throat. If anyone is hateful in this discussion, look how the people against R-71 are trying to out the initiative signers. Live and let live. Just don't ask me to pay for your choices.
D Burn | Oct 21, 2009 12:49 pm | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
This is at least temporarily a victory for all minorities who want to participate in the political process. Democracy succeeds with majority rule and adequate protections for minority voice. When a minority voice is subject to harassment and persecution, the government must take steps to protect them. This is the whole basis for laws protecting homosexuals. Now this principle is being used to protect moral conservatives. The level of name calling and accusations of "hate" in this whole discussion/debate is an evidence of the legitimate need for such protections.
Paul Goddard | Oct 21, 2009 12:20 pm | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Well if we are going to give out thier names and addresses are we going to give out level 1,2, and 3 sex offender names and addresses? Hmmmm
Gary Beane | Oct 21, 2009 9:08 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Fotunately, the hypocrits do not rule on this subject because of the initiative process. Hate and divisiveness are not a resultof the initiative process, it is promoted by those of limited vision who would impose their will upon society without recourse. The right to itiative or petition to government is an endearment of free society. Without it we would suffer the tyrany of rule by those that are hateful and hypocritical.
Gene Miller | Oct 21, 2009 8:09 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Fotunately, the hypocrits do not rule on this subject because of the initiative process. Hate and divisiveness are not a resultof the initiative process, it is promoted by those of limited vision who would impose their will upon society without recourse. The right to itiative or petition to government is an endearment of free society. Without it we would suffer the tyrany of rule by those that are hateful and hypocritical.
Gene Miller | Oct 21, 2009 8:07 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Since the signers of this divisive hate petition cannot be exposed, then the legislature should take the next logical step this upcoming legislative session. The legislature should ban or highly restrict petition promoters. It has gotten way out of control with Tim Eyman and now, like a cancer, it is eroding our entire state politics. At least cancer treatments, like radiation, can expose the cancer and fight it. We need the legislature to fight this cancer before they start wearing sheets to stir up more hatred. Fortunately, there are more good people in this state than the cowards!
Anthony Vicari | Oct 21, 2009 6:53 am | 1 replies | Request removal
Post reply