Settle is expected to rule in the next few days.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because this case – those who opposed rights for same-sex domestic partners versus state attorney – has been kicking around the courts for more than two years. The case, Doe vs. Reed, already has been all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court once, where justices supported the state law that allows for the disclosure of the names.
Katie Blinn, state co-director of elections, said following a recent hearing in Judge Settle’s courtroom that she’s optimistic the former Shelton attorney will rule in the secretary of state’s favor and permit release of the 138,000 names of people who signed Referendum 71 petitions more than two years ago.
We hope she’s right.
The chronology:
On May 18, 2009, Gov. Chris Gregoire set things in motion when she signed into law a legislative bill that extended domestic-partner benefits to same-sex couples.
Immediately, a coalition of conservatives organized under the Protect Marriage Washington banner started circulating referendum petitions in hopes of overturning the law.
That summer, two pro-gay-rights organizations announced that they planned to post the names of those people who signed the petition. It was an awkward and ill-advised attempt to keep people from signing.
Sufficient signatures were collected to put the issue on the November general-election ballot, where voters kept the domestic-partnership protections in state law by a margin of 53 percent in favor, 47 percent opposed.
Between the signature campaign and the November vote, Protect Marriage sued Secretary of State Sam Reed to prohibit him from releasing the signatures.
Judge Settle granted an injunction, saying the state’s Public Records Act likely was unconstitutional as it pertains to the release of signatures on initiative and referendum petitions.
Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna appealed Judge Settle’s ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, then on to the U.S. Supreme Court. In April 2010, the Supreme Court, in a decisive 8-1 opinion, ruled that the Public Records Act provisions requiring the release of signature names was constitutional. The justices allowed Protect Marriage to go back to the Settle’s District Court to try to show how release of the names could put signers at personal risk.
That was the issue before Judge Settle in the Tacoma District Court on Oct. 3 – whether to release the names of the referendum signers or refuse to release the name for protection of those who signed.
Protect Marriage attorneys said release of the names would subject signers to threats and harassment, similar to what happened in California after voters repealed gay marriage in that state.
Attorneys for McKenna’s office said Protect Marriage has not made a credible case for secrecy and said what happened in California has no bearing on this Washington case. State attorneys joined by the Washington Coalition for Open Government and Washington Families Standing Together, a domestic-partnership advocacy group, asked Judge Settle to release the names.
The judge said he would have a decision within two weeks.
“We make it clear that this case is not about domestic partnerships, but about our long-standing elections policy that initiative and referendum petitions are public records,” Blinn said after the hearing. “Without absolutely compelling evidence of harassment, we believe the courts will not overturn the policy of treating petitions as public record, a part of the electoral history of the state. It is a very high bar for anyone to have to prove.”
She continued, “We know that political discussions get heated; otherwise they probably wouldn’t have risen to the level of a referendum and a campaign. Many issues, such as raising or lowering taxes, also get very heated.”
Her point is well-taken. It’s not the ballot issue that’s key; it’s whether the names are a matter of public record.
Let’s hope the state prevails in this case. It would strike a blow for more openness and transparency in Washington’s elections process.
