Let's see if I understand this ... the Supreme Court is saying, "This law is valid, but we're going to let you think some more about whether it's okay to ignore it."
I know the Court often rules on narrow legal questions, and this is clearly the case here. The Court may not even have listened to evidence on the likely impact of making the signatories' names known. But even so, I can't help thinking they're ducking and weaving here. If the names are known to the Registrar of Voters in the state of Washington, should or shouldn't the names be available to those who inquire? The Supreme Court said, "Uhh, well, maybe. Or maybe not. Let us think about that for another year or two."
Weasels.
*** Jenna ***