Heraldnet.com
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 6:05 pm
LocalNorthwestNation & WorldPoliticsSpecial ReportsPhotosColumnistsMultimedia 
RECENT POSTS:
A new state ferry is born  February 9

From a torn-up kitchen comes a recipe for health care reform  February 9

Morning mystery: What happened to House Bill 3181?  February 9

Today's forecast calls for morning tax duel  February 9

Call them the Roadkill Caucus  February 9

Archives:
LINKS:

Local
Island County
Snohomish County

State
Governor
Legislature
Secretary of State

U.S.
House of Representatives
Senate
White House

Useful Resources
Federal Election Commission
Public Disclosure Commission
Thomas (federal legislation tracking)
TVW
RECENT COLUMNS:
Three politicians who want Gregoire's job in 2012  February 7
School levies, bonds vote may be surprise  January 31
Maybe a centerfold pose wins elections  January 24
Dull report from Washington Council on Aerospace no way to keep aerospace j...  January 17
 

ADVERTISEMENT

The Petri Dish


 
ADVERTISEMENT

 
Petition to Supreme Court ( PDF)
 

Ref 71 sponsors file petition with Supreme Court in signature case


Posted at 11:59 am by Jerry Cornfield

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to decide the case of whether signers of petitions for Referendum 71 have a constitutional right to keep their names secret.

James Bopp, attorney for Protect Marriage Washington which gathered the signatures, announced today that he had filed a petition of certiorari with the nation's high court.

I've attached the filing as a PDF or you can go here to find all of the documents Bopp has filed in the case.

To quickly recap, a federal judge agreed to block release of the names. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision agreeing with the state's argument that the petitions should be treated as public records. Justice Anthony Kennedy blocked the appellate action from taking effect and got the rest of the court to put a hold on release of the names until it could decide whether to accept the case.

If the Supreme Court grants a hearing, it would likely not occur until June 2010 at the earliest..

Bopp made the following comments in a press release.

“When it ordered the State not to release the personal information of the petition signers before the election, the Supreme Court took the first step in allowing those who support traditional marriage to exercise their First Amendment right to speak freely and not be subject to compelled public disclosure of their identity and beliefs by the government.

We are now asking the Supreme Court to take the next step, and put permanent safeguards in place to protect those who wish to support traditional marriage, and all other speakers, from being subject to harassment and intimidation in the future.”

TThose who support traditional marriage have seen their personal property destroyed and have been subject to death threats because of their beliefs. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to prevent this from recurring in future elections by preventing the government from compelling citizens to disclose their identities and beliefs to the public.”

COMMENTS

Log in or register to post a new comment.


To read other terms and conditions, click here

The irony....
Apparently, what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Take, for instance, ACORN. While I denounce their tactics, it was the tenacity of the oppopsition who wanted to verify signatures and information that eventually exposed some wrong doings. How is this case any different? Are "all" the names collected for R-71 actual living citizens of Washington State...or will we find the likes of Mickey Mouse or George Bush among the signatures?? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Karen Hunter | Nov 6, 2009 9:37 pm | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply

It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic...
The pro-homosexual "marriage" crowd continues to flail about hysterically, attempting to search out and destroy anyone who would oppose their fetid agenda. Eh, whatever....

Even if the government were to redefine the word "marriage" (shades of Newspeak), it wouldn't alter the fact that a man can't "marry" a man, nor a woman a woman. Sometimes the truth just sux. razz

Veritas Splendor | Nov 6, 2009 1:16 pm | 0 replies | Request removal

Post reply


  Return to The Petri Dish
Other Advertisers
TODAY'S TOP JOBS
 View All Top Jobs 
Top Cars
Top Homes

ADVERTISEMENT