Another appalling decision from SCOTUS
This is going to gut people's willingness to put their names to a petition
"Those who sign a petition to place an issue of public dispute onto a statewide ballot may not later claim a broad First Amendment shield of anonymity to prevent disclosure of their names to the public, the US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. In an 8-to-1 decision, the high court said public disclosure of referendum petitions does not as a general matter violate the First Amendment.
But the court also stressed that under certain circumstances, petition signers may be able to remain anonymous. ‘Those resisting disclosure can prevail under the First Amendment if they can show a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure [of personal information] will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either government officials or private parties,’ Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion in a case called Doe v. Reed.
The issue arose in Washington State after a group opposed to same-sex marriage sought to repeal a recently passed domestic partnership law. The group wanted the law to reflect that marriage and related legal benefits could only be between a man and a woman.”
Source
A fuller discussion of the decision here.
12 comments:
From the second linked piece:
"The Court went on to hold—and you’re likely to not see this in many press reports—in a different 8-1 split that the First Amendment does bar disclosure when the plaintiffs can show a reasonable probability that they may be subject to threats of harassment or intimidation for signing the petition. The Court expressly noted that such a consideration of this marriage petition was currently pending in a lower court, and signaled the High Court would consider that issue if necessary."
…
"The record of atrocious harassment in the wake of California’s Proposition 8 makes perfectly clear that these marriage supporters can make a strong case that they could be harassed. As such, by the standard the Court announced today, the marriage supporters should win."
I'm reminded that the Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and James Jay (later the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) under the pseudonym "Publius". If doing so was appropriate in pushing for the Constitution's adoption, then protecting such privacy is certainly appropriate in cases like this.
So, to gain the right to vote on something in the privacy of the voting booth, I must announce to the world that I am in favor of the vote, which is automatically construed (whether it is reasonable or not) as support FOR the issue to be voted on.
In my opinion, if the vote is sacredly private, then so should the petition process. Scalia is wrong - because under HIS logic, those voting on ballot issues are "acting as legislators" and therefore subject to publication of their votes!
Official electoral voting has to be a secret ballot for historical reasons. Voluntary petition-signing on other issues isn't, and only cowards would hide behind secrecy about their otherwise declared views.
Luke said;
"I'm reminded that the Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and "James Jay" (later the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)"
Shouldn't that be "John Jay"? (as in NYC's John Jay College of Criminal Justice)
I see no real reason to get all worked up over this decision. First of all, under this present govt., we should be used to seeing our freedom disappearing. Also, you can always use a phony name on a petition if you choose.
Anonymous 2:24 said...
"Official electoral voting has to be a secret ballot for historical reasons. Voluntary petition-signing on other issues isn't, and only cowards would hide behind secrecy about their otherwise declared views."
What about union members who are voting for their leaders? Are they entitled to secrecy? Although with "card-check" they won't get any.
Is there evidence of intimidation in union voting?
"Shouldn't that be "John Jay"?"
Oops. You're right. I guess I got James Madison's first name stuck in my head. Thanks for the correction.
Anon 3:09 AM: If you asked your question, "Is there evidence of intimidation in union voting?" sarcastically, don't bother to read the following. If you are sincere, read on.
Two incidents. The first formed an opinion about unions, the second cemented it.
At the age of 16 I was a lot boy for a car dealer. One day a stranger stopped me as I wiped down cars, plopped a large ledger book on the hood of the car and started asking questions: "What's your name?" "Your age?" "Address?" When I asked why he wanted to know he said, "You're joining the union." I told him I wasn't interested. He informed me that, in that case, he'd have me fired.
Shrimp 16 year old, large older man - nope, no intimidation there. Like heck. As it turned out the union wasn't allowed to force minors into the union, so I didn't have to join.
A few years later, college age, I worked at a smelter. If you wanted to work you joined the union. My job entailed various labor jobs, among them sweeping the floor. One day the break whistle blew just as I was sweeping a pile of dust off the walk way. It took about thirty seconds to sweep the pile to one side so everyone wouldn't walk through it. Two union stewards came up behind me, one on each side and took my arms. They informed me that if the saw me work past the break or quitting whistle again I'd find the windshield broken out of my car. And if that didn't convince me, they'd work me over.
Nope, no intimidation there either. Not at all.
Intimidation of workers by unions when it comes to a vote to accept or reject a union or elect leaders is probable to near certainty. The secret ballot is the only protection workers have from unions.
That summer working for the smelter, as well as being forced to join the American Federation of Teachers later, have made me very skeptical of Unions and how they operate. They may be a necessary evil, but I don't like them at all.
Anonymous 3:09 said...
"Is there evidence of intimidation in union voting?"
DUH, where've you been for the last 100 years? The labor movement is infamous for being one of "the most" corrosive and corrupt entities in this nation, and everyone (except you) knows it.
I think the SCOTUS decision itself was fine, a petition by definition is an instrument of public declaration. The REAL problem is the failure of the authorities to use the laws against threats and violence against the minority who would abuse people for stating their opinion.
-- continued - got ahead of myself and left off what should be done.
The people ought to get their legislators to pass a law making the completed petitions into records that are "closed" for a period (say 10 years) to allow the hot heads to cool down.
Anonymous 2:24 AM "...and only cowards would hide behind secrecy about their otherwise declared views."
Hmmm.....kinda like those cowards who post anonymously on a blog?
Anonymous 4:39 PM"...making the completed petitions into records that are "closed" for a period ..."
I'd be happy with "closed" until after the vote if the petition drive is successful, or not less than one year if the petition drive fails.
The point is - people who want to intimidate others for perceived support of an issue are cowards afraid to let the people decide issues.
Post a Comment