- Lesbian couple ejected from Ravens game
- Ron Paul’s heartless stance on health care
- Gay cop says dog shooting was necessary
- 5 lesbians attacked; police refuse to take report
- Off-duty D.C. cop arrested for shooting trans women
- Mass walk-out at trans woman’s funeral
- Young, gay caucus-goers talk politics, support for GOP
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- March 2009
- October 2006
- July 2002
America's Leading Gay News Source
High court to hear Wash. state Referendum 71 petition case
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that will determine whether the names of Washington state residents who signed a petition to put the state’s domestic partner registry up for referendum will be made public.
The court announced that on Friday it had granted a writ of certiorari to hear the case, known as Doe v. Reed, according to SCOTUSblog, an independent blog run by Tom Goldstein, a partner at Akin Gump.
The plaintiffs in the case represent petition signers in Washington who last year put the state’s newly expanded domestic partner registry on the ballot through voter-initiated referendum. Despite the effort of those seeking to void the rights expansion, the referendum succeeded by 53 percent, maintaining the domestic partnership law in the state.
Those opposed to the domestic partnership registry in Washington have said making these names public would make the signers vulnerable to harassment, while some LGBT bloggers have said they wanted the names to be available to put them online.
According to SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court will consider two issues in the case:
Title: John Doe #1 v. Reed
Issues: (1) Whether the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers; and (2) whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
A spokesperson for the Supreme Court said a time hasn’t been set yet for oral arguments. Decisions in the Supreme Court are usually handed down in the term that oral arguments take place.
Tagged with Doe v. Reed, Referendum 71, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington state

view print edition
This is an attempt by heterosexual-only marriage supporters to create voter fraud by forging names onto future petitions in an effort to take away gay people’s rights. They did it with R-71 and they want to do it again.
[Translate]