News and Events => Political and Legal News => Topic started by: Shana A on June 26, 2010, 09:18:25 AM Return to Full Version
Title: Supreme Court Rebukes Efforts of Anti-Equality Forces to Conceal Petition Signat
Post by: Shana A on June 26, 2010, 09:18:25 AM
Post by: Shana A on June 26, 2010, 09:18:25 AM
Supreme Court Rebukes Efforts of Anti-Equality Forces to Conceal Petition Signatures
Thursday, June 24, 2010
By Ivan Garcia, Assistant Editor
http://gltnewsnow.com/2010/06/24/supreme-court-rebukes-efforts-of-anti-equality-forces-to-conceal-petition-signatures/comment-page-1/ (http://gltnewsnow.com/2010/06/24/supreme-court-rebukes-efforts-of-anti-equality-forces-to-conceal-petition-signatures/comment-page-1/)
The Human Rights Campaign – the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization – today praised the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling against anti-equality groups who sought to overturn Washington's law providing for disclosure of signatories to an initiative or referendum petition. The case, Doe v. Reed, arose from the Referendum 71 campaign in November 2009, which unsuccessfully sought to repeal part of Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership law. The petitioners argued that the disclosure law violated their First Amendment rights and public scrutiny of their signatures would result in harassment and intimidation by those who support LGBT equality. In an 8-1 decision, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court upheld the state's disclosure laws as constitutional, but remanded to the trial court the question of whether the law could be applied to petitioners if it would subject them to threats, reprisals, and other harassment.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
By Ivan Garcia, Assistant Editor
http://gltnewsnow.com/2010/06/24/supreme-court-rebukes-efforts-of-anti-equality-forces-to-conceal-petition-signatures/comment-page-1/ (http://gltnewsnow.com/2010/06/24/supreme-court-rebukes-efforts-of-anti-equality-forces-to-conceal-petition-signatures/comment-page-1/)
The Human Rights Campaign – the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization – today praised the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling against anti-equality groups who sought to overturn Washington's law providing for disclosure of signatories to an initiative or referendum petition. The case, Doe v. Reed, arose from the Referendum 71 campaign in November 2009, which unsuccessfully sought to repeal part of Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership law. The petitioners argued that the disclosure law violated their First Amendment rights and public scrutiny of their signatures would result in harassment and intimidation by those who support LGBT equality. In an 8-1 decision, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court upheld the state's disclosure laws as constitutional, but remanded to the trial court the question of whether the law could be applied to petitioners if it would subject them to threats, reprisals, and other harassment.
Title: Re: Supreme Court Rebukes Efforts of Anti-Equality Forces to Conceal Petition Signat
Post by: Jenna Lynne on June 26, 2010, 10:45:41 AM
Post by: Jenna Lynne on June 26, 2010, 10:45:41 AM
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 ***
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 ***