Gay Referendum Information Not Subject To Public Records Law?
November 22nd, 2009
Some time ago a certain Tim Eyman, known in the state of Washington for earning his living by running initiative campaigns, filed a lawsuit in Thurston County court, seeking that the private information like the names of signatories of his gay rights petition be redacted from the public records, should those records be disclosed for public inspection. The lawsuite was filed after it became known that a dozen of his petitions for his previously run initiatives had been asked for disclosure. The activist believes the state of Washington Public Records Act contradicts the constitution, because it mandates public release of the information regardless of the probability whether such release could expose the people involved in the initiative to harassment, threats, and even put their health and life in jeopardy.
The county judge designated to hear the case made a wise decision and issued an order prohibiting disclosure of the petition until the court hearing is over and the verdict is in place. The point is this is not the first time petitions information public disclosure is blocked by a court. Moreover, a few days ago the U.S. Supreme Court too issued order prohibiting the state from publishing personal data of the people who had signed this gay rights petition in attempt to initiate a referendum on same sex marriages issues.
A Thurton County judge too said the case hearing would be postponed until he got the opinion he had requested from the 9th Circuit Court. This case may well be accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, since the opinions on the issue differ dramatically even at the highest levels. For example, Judge B. Settle from District Court believes releasing the names would constitute the violation of the First Amendment rights of citizens who put their signatures under petitions, while the office of the secretary of state’s opinion is that banning the petitions information from being released the way the public records law provides would mean a significant step back from open government principles.