OLYMPIA – It’s no longer a secret who signed petitions putting a controversial expansion of the state’s gay rights laws up for a vote in 2009.

On Monday, the Secretary of State released names of everyone who signed Referendum 71 petitions after a federal judge found no “reasonable proba

bility” any of the nearly 138,000 people faced threats, harassment or reprisal for their action.

By the day’s end, the state agency had filled two-year-old requests for the information received from six people, and began making DVDs with the information available to the public.

“This i

s a victory for transparency and open disclosure in our state’s referendum and initiative process,” said Secretary of State Sam Reed. “While I appreciate a group’s right to petition the court to have its signature petitions exempted from public view, I think it’s important to create a high bar before allowing such names to be kept secret.

“When voters sign petitions, they are trying to change state law. We believe that changing state law should be open to public view,” he said.

The Arlington group fighting to keep the names secret intends to appeal Monday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle.

Its leader said the judge used “an awfully high standard” in rejecting their arguments that signers will encounter public hostility and possible discrimination at work once their identities become known.

“It’s like we had to prove all those people had been harassed already,” said Larry Stickney of Arlington, spokesman for Protect Marriage Washington, which pushed the measure to repeal a law giving registered domestic partners, including same-sex couples, the same rights and benefits under state law as married couples.

The effort failed. Part of why Stickney’s group plans to appeal is because next year Democratic leaders may push through a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. If that happens, Stickney expects another signature-gathering drive on a referendum and Monday’s ruling could impede their success.

“I know for a fact it will deter some people from signing. I know for a fact it will inspire others.” he said. “The tactic utilized by the homosexual groups is to put a chill on the process. This issue is not over.”

Protect Marriage Washington sued to keep signers’ names secret when referendum opponents said they would post identities’ online in hopes of spurring uncomfortable conversations between them and their neighbors.

The legal fight reached the U.S. Supreme Court last year with the Arlington group’s lawyers arguing petition signing, like voting, is constitutionally-protected political speech.

But the high court ruled against the group. It found the First Amendment is not an absolute shield against disclosure and upheld the use of Washington’s Public Records Act to obtain the names of initiative signers.

The majority did say disclosure could be blocked if sponsors of a measure show there is “a reasonable probability” signers will be the target of “threats, harassment or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.”

Protect Marriage Washington tried to do that, producing declarations from several people who encountered hostility when their support of the measure became public. Among them were Stickney, state Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, and Elizabeth Scott of Mukilteo, a Republican candidate for the state Legislature who testified to receiving a death threat at home.

Settle, in his 34-page ruling, wasn’t convinced. He wrote the plaintiffs “supplied minimal testimony from a few witnesses who, in their respective deposition testimony, stated either that police efforts to mitigate reported incidents was sufficient or unnecessary.”

They supplied no evidence that police “were or are now unable or unwilling to mitigate any claimed harassment or are now unable or unwilling to control the same, should disclosure be made,” he wrote.

Settle also noted Protect Marriage Washington produced no evidence any of its hundreds of donors had been targeted for attack though their names have been public for some time.

While Settle didn’t buy the group’s arguments, he did warn the case they made shows how politically volatile a subject gay marriage has become in Washington and around the country.

“They have developed substantial evidence that the public advocacy of traditional marriage as the exclusive definition of marriage, or the expansion of rights for same sex partners, has engendered hostility in this state, and risen to violence elsewhere, against some who have engaged in that advocacy,” he wrote.

“This should concern every citizen and deserves the full attention of law enforcement when the line gets crossed and an advocate becomes the victim of a crime or is subject to a genuine threat of violence,” Settle wrote. “The right of individuals to speak openly and associate with others who share common views without justified fear of harm is at the very foundation of preserving a free and open society.”

Jerry Cornfield: 360-352-8623; jcornfield@heraldnet.com.