- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- 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
Supreme Court hears anti-gay referendum case
U.S. Supreme Court justices posed tough questions Wednesday to plaintiffs seeking to keep secret the names of Washington state petitioners who last year put an anti-gay referendum on the state ballot.
In the case of Doe v. Reed, plaintiffs contend a state law requiring public disclosure of petition signatures violates the First Amendment rights of signers who placed on the ballot an initiative, known as Referendum 71, to rescind the state’s recently expanded domestic partner registry.
Despite the efforts, Washington residents upheld the state’s domestic partner registry, 53-47 percent. In the aftermath, opponents of the registry have sought to keep secret the names of people who put the measure on the ballot. The state contends it has a legitimate governmental interest in public disclosure of the names because it preserves electoral integrity and provides important information to voters.
Representing plaintiffs during oral arguments was James Bopp, a conservative attorney who also serves as general counsel for Focus on the Family. He argued the public disclosure would subject people who signed the petition to possible danger.
“No person should suffer harassment from participating in the political system,” Bopp said.
But many justices expressed skepticism about Bopp’s argument during his appearance before the court. Some of the toughest questions came from justices known for holding conservative views.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia noted openness is a component of democracy, and said petitioning the court to strike the Washington law as unconstitutional was “asking us to go into a whole new field where we’ve never gone before.”
“The fact is running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage, and the First Amendment doesn’t protect you from criticism — or even nasty phone calls,” Scalia.
Also expressing skepticism about the plaintiffs’ arguments was Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted that striking down the Washington law would also mean the court would also strike down similar public disclosure laws throughout the country.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned whether the names on the list would remain confidential without the public disclosure law. She noted that Protect Marriage, the organization that launched the initiative, would still have access to the names and could use them for fundraising or sell them to others.
As justices challenged his assertion that petitioners could be subject to harassment, Bopp replied that the campaign manager for Protect Marriage had his entire family sleep together in one room of his home because of threats he received.
Scalia replied that such threats “should be moved against vigorously,” but said they shouldn’t necessarily stop the political process as established by Washington law.
Defending the law on behalf of Washington during oral arguments was Washington Attorney General Robert McKenna, who maintained the law as it stood provided no information about signers that was unconstitutional.
He noted that Washington has had other controversial matters on the ballot, including a question regarding assisted suicide, and said there was no evidence that petition signers for those referenda were harassed.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito directed some of the toughest questions toward McKenna. The justice questioned why it’s necessary to disclose signatures to preserve electoral integrity when the secretary of state could crosscheck the names in a voter registration database.
Additionally, Alito asked whether the attorney general would disclose the names and addresses of people working at his office so people could come to employees’ homes and have “uncomfortable conversations” with them.
McKenna replied the office wouldn’t disclose the names, noting people with concerns can come to the attorney general’s office to have these “uncomfortable conversations.”
Multiple LGBT groups, including Lambda Legal, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case on behalf of Washington state.
In a statement, Jon Davidson, Lambda’s legal director, criticized the notion that potential harassment against people who signed the petition compares to discrimination endured by the LGBT community.
“There’s no comparison between a few scattered instances of whispers and disapproving glares and the very real discrimination, harassment and even violence LGBT people experience every day all over the country,” he said. “After all, more hate crimes are reported against gay people than any other group per capita in the United States.”
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the plaintiffs’ arguments “an outrageous attempt by anti-gay groups to use false claims of persecution to undermine laws that protect the integrity of the democratic process.”
A decision in the case is expected before the end of the current term for the Supreme Court in July.
Tagged with Antonin Scalia, Doe v. Reed, James Bopp, Jon Davidson, Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Referendum 71, Robert McKenna, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, Shannon Minter, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington state
We welcome your thoughtful, respectful comments. Please read our 'Terms of Service' page for more information about community expectations.
Comments from new visitors, flagged users, or those containing questionable language are automatically held for moderation and may not appear immediately.