Connect with us

Politics

High court rules against Wash. anti-gay activists

Published

16 years ago

on

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against those seeking to keep secret the names of people who last year signed a petition to put an anti-gay referendum on the Washington State ballot.

In the 8-1 decision, the court determined in the case of Doe v. Reed that public disclosure of referendum petitions doesn’t — as a general rule — violate the First Amendment rights of signers.

But the decision left room for anti-gay activists to succeed at a lower court on the more focused question of whether making public the signatures for Referendum 71 specifically runs contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court was Chief Justice John Roberts. The sole dissenting voice in ruling came from Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

The initiative in question, Referendum 71, came before Washington State residents in 2009 and threatened to abrogate the expansion of the state’s domestic partner registry. But 53 percent of the electorate voted in favor of upholding the law, keeping the registry in place.

Concurrent with the campaign against the law, those who put the anti-gay initiative on the ballot — led by Protect Marriage Washington — challenged Washington State’s Public Records Act, which requires public disclosure of the names of petition signers who put referenda on the ballot.

The U.S. District Court of the Western District of Washington issued a preliminary injunction blocking the publication of signatures, and the issue made its way to the Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs argued the law could put those who signed the petition in danger after their names became public. In defense of the statute, Washington State argued disclosure contributes to electoral integrity of the ballot process and allows the public to double-check in case a mistake is made.

Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, affirms the arguments that public disclosure promotes electoral integrity and concludes the disclosure law enables the public to find potential mistakes or instances of forgery.

“Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures,” Roberts writes. “Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot.”

Roberts also rejects the assertion from plaintiffs that the court should overturn the disclosure law on the basis that disclosure of the names who signed the Referendum 71 petition would place these signers in danger.

The chief justice says the question before the court isn’t “whether PRA disclosure violates the First Amendment with respect to those who signed the R–71 petition,” but whether this disclosure “in general violates the First Amendment rights of those who sign referendum petitions.”

“The problem for plaintiffs is that their argument rests almost entirely on the specific harm they say would attend disclosure of the information on the R–71 petition, or on similarly controversial ones,” Roberts writes.

Roberts says the court must reject this broad challenge to all disclosure laws, but says this ruling doesn’t necessarily “foreclose a litigant’s success” in a narrower challenge before the district court.

The chief justice recalls how the court previously determined withholding names may be appropriate in some instances with “reasonable probability” that individuals would be harassed.

In a statement, Anne Levinson, chair of Washington Families Standing Together, which fought to maintain the state’s domestic partnership law, praised the high court’s decision.

She said the Supreme Court made clear that public disclosure laws ensure “measures are not put on the ballot by fraudulent means or mistake.”

“Nowhere is the integrity and transparency of elections more important than where the ballot box is being used in an attempt to take away fundamental rights,” she said. “Nowhere is it more important for the public to know that attempts to affect the lives of their fellow citizens by promoting ballot measures are free from fraud and error.”

But Larry Stickney, president of the Washington Values Alliance, said he’s “optimistic” anti-gay activists would be able to keep the petition names secret following action from the district court.

“Likely we’re going to be back in district court and we’ll be able to bring out some of the harassment and intimidation efforts that were made against Protect Marriage Washington,” he said. “We’re happy that that effort will carry on.”

Levinson dismissed the idea that those working on the campaign to overturn the domestic partner registry faced harassment and said there’s “absolutely no evidence of harassment” of signers.

“What the petitioners cite to by way of threats or other harassment, they talk about their campaign manager of other leadership in their campaign,” she said. “Those are the folks like me who were debating on TV or radio or leading a campaign effort, so that’s irrelevent to making any case about petition signers.”

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said he doesn’t think plaintiffs have a shot keeping the names of petitions signers under wraps in light of the “reasonable probability” standard the Supreme Court established.

“I think they are very unlikely to have any success because the standard that the Supreme Court imposed here is — in a particular case — you can only prevent disclosure if you can show a reasonable probability that disclosure will subject to threats, harassment or reprisal,” he said. “So not the possibility — not that it could happen — but a reasonable probability that it will happen.”

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

2026 Midterm Elections

Markey’s primary win deemed success for LGBTQ activists

Mass. lawmaker champions transgender rights

Published

1 day ago

on

September 2, 2026

By

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey speaks outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 13, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) clinched the Democratic seat for his reelection campaign in Massachusetts’s primary election on Tuesday.

Markey won the deep-blue state with 64.8 percent of the vote, according to NBC News, triumphing over Marine Corps combat veteran and Congressman Seth Moulton, who received 35.2 percent of the vote.

Massachusetts’s primary election, which determined which Democratic candidate will head to the polls to face off against the Republican challenger in November, is being considered a victory for LGBTQ-inclusive policy, as well as for a divisive pro-transgender rights candidate — both things Markey has become an outspoken champion of.

Markey has experience at multiple levels of government, from the state level, where he served three terms in the state House of Representatives, to his federal tenure, including 20 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and is now serving his second term as a senator. He has become a fixture of a changing Democratic Party in one of the most consistently blue places in the U.S.

This primary — and much of the national discussion surrounding the Senate seat — focused a lot of campaigning power on fighting the growing sentiment, led mostly by Republicans, that the frustration many Americans feel lends itself to an anti-establishment and anti-incumbent attitude.

Markey ran his campaign using his past as a reflection of his commitment to constantly putting his best foot forward for Bay Staters — particularly with apprehension for issues younger and more progressive democrats have been righting for — including Green New Deal and “Medicare for All” while Moulton — who was also elected to federal office prior to this run — campaigned on being younger than Markey, arguing that he was not the same type of established politician.

Moulton also faced backlash for negative comments about trans athletes, sparking criticism for those who did want younger candidate but want for trans rights to be protected.

Markey’s track record of supporting the LGBTQ community is one of the most clear in federal politics, one that has garnered a “100 percent lifetime voting record” on the Human Rights Campaign’s PAC politician review scorecard.

That list of Markey’s actions includes being a cosponsor of the Equality Act, driving landmark legislation to ensure federal protections for LGBTQ Americans, and being one of the most vocal proponents for trans rights in the federal government — specifically in multiple appropriations bills and in the National Defense Authorization Act. He was also the lead sponsor of the Transgender Health Care Access Act and the Transgender Bill of Rights resolution.

Markey first introduced the Transgender Bill of Rights in the Senate in 2023, where it ultimately failed to be brought to law. He reintroduced the legislation this year once again. This was a direct response to the attitude pushed by many conservatives after 2021, when the push to minimize trans rights started to become a key part of their cause and has been constantly propped up by the Trump-Vance administration.

“Massachusetts needs a senator who stands up and fights back, a senator who never forgets who they are fighting for,” Markey said during his victory speech. “That has been the mission of my life, and it always will be.”

Following the calling of the primary, a slew of LGBTQ organizations rallied behind Markey, many pushing his past as an asset that puts his money where his mouth is through advocating for legislation specifically protecting the LGBTQ community.

Tyler Hack, the executive director of the Christopher Street Project, an organization dedicated to pushing for legal protections for trans americans, released a statement following Markey’s win. Hack argued that putting forward such a staunchly pro-trans candidate is a win for the community, especially after endorsing him earlier this year.

“Tonight, anti-trans politics lost. Massachusetts rejected the idea that attacking transgender people is a shortcut to political power. Voters chose a different path: one where equality is not negotiable, cruelty is not courage, and transgender people do not have to disappear for Democrats to succeed.”

The Human Rights Campaign also endorsed him as a candidate earlier this year and issued a statement via its president, Kelley Robinson.

“Ed Markey has spent decades fighting for LGBTQ+ equality, for working people, and for a more livable world,” Robinson said. “He knows why equality matters. He’s stood with us no matter what. We were proud to endorse him this year, and when a pro-equality majority takes back the Senate this fall, we will continue to count on him as a champion for our community.”

Markey is running for reelection against Republican John Deaton in November, where he is expected to win.

Continue Reading

Congress

HRC president campaigns for Chris Pappas in NH

Gay congressman running to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen

Published

3 days ago

on

August 31, 2026

By

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, left, campaigns with U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) in Manchester, N.H., on Aug. 30, 2026. (Photo courtesy of the Human Rights Campaign)

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson on Sunday campaigned for U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) in New Hampshire.

Robinson traveled to Manchester, the state’s largest city, nine days before the Sept. 8 primary that will determine who will vie for retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)’s seat.

Former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu, who represented New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate from 2003-2009, will face off against former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, who represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate from 2010-2013, in the Republican primary.

Karishma Manzur is among the Democrats challenging Pappas.

A poll the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released on Aug. 26 shows Sununu is ahead of Brown. The same survey shows Pappas ahead of Manzur and his other Democratic challengers.

The UNH Survey Center poll shows Sununu ahead of Pappas by a 45-43 percent margin if they were to face off in the general election. The margin of error is +/-2.1 percent.

Pappas would become the first openly gay man elected to the U.S. Senate if he were to win in November.

Continue Reading

Congress

Chris Van Hollen says the Democratic Party needs change. Is he the one to lead it?

Senator is backing anti-establishment Democrats across the country

Published

1 week ago

on

August 26, 2026

By

By LEE O. SANDERLIN | The Democratic Party is having something of an identity crisis — losing to President Donald Trump twice in three elections will do that.

Should the party embrace anti-establishment figures who espouse progressive policy ideas like Medicare for all and rhetoric about unrigging the economy for the 1 percent? Or should Democrats try to appeal to moderates who want to return to semi-normalcy in a time of political upheaval?

Although he’s been in Congress since 2002, with key leadership roles throughout his tenure, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, 67, counts himself firmly in the anti-establishment camp.

The rest of this article can be found on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Popular