The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the now high-profile case of Doe v. Reed on Friday, just like I had hoped for in late October.This was the second time this week the nation's highest court has intervened in the controversy over whether heterosexual supremacists will be able to shield themselves from public oversight while advocating for public policy changes which would harm the LGBT community. The first action was in their ruling upholding a stay preventing the broadcast of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger federal trial.
The second action is summarized by the Washington Post:
It should be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will really decide to strike down Washington State's public disclosure law because of an alleged right of people to participate in enacting (and abolishing) laws through the electoral process anonymously.The court agreed to decide whether it was unconstitutional for the state of Washington to make public the names of 138,500 voters who signed a petition for a referendum on whether to overturn a state "everything-but-marriage" law. The statute expanded rights for those who entered into domestic partnerships, both homosexual and heterosexual.
The group that championed the referendum said rival organizations planned to make the petitioners' names available on the Internet and subject them to "threats, harassment and reprisals." Those groups denied such intentions, and the state said its public-records law required disclosure of the names as part of the transparency that comes with democratic participation.
Protect Marriage Washington was successful in getting the issue to referendum last fall, but not at the ballot box. Washington voters endorsed the law by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent.
But the petition-signers' names have not been disclosed. The Supreme Court blocked the release in October while considering whether the case presented a significant question about political speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said Washington's public-records law did not violate constitutional protections.
This claim makes a mockery of the notion that democracy occurs in an open exchange of ideas and I hope the Supreme Court realizes that and rules for the defendant-appellants, the State of Washington, and upholds the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
(It should be noted tat the Supreme Court under Chief Justices Roberts and Rehnquist has taken great delight in overturning the 9th Circuit on multiple occasions.)
UPDATED 11:59 01/17/2010:
The specific questions the Supreme Court has asked both sides to consider are:
I would say the answer to both questions is "Yes." Let's hope the SCOTUS agrees.
- 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.
- Whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, and whether Petitioners met all the elements required for a preliminary injunction.
