On the ballot in Alaska: transparency

from Stateline.org

In Alaska, a state that has had more than its share of political scandals, it’s no surprise that an initiative aimed at cleaning up government made it onto the ballot this year. What's surprising is how many respected groups have lined up against it...

The reasons have as much to do with the ballot initiative process itself as they do anyone's feelings about corruption. Proposition 1 is a classic case of a confusingly worded measure that would have broader consequences than its label suggests.

...

To some Alaskans, the fight against Proposition 1 has morphed into a fight to guard their state's initiative process from those who would take advantage of its loopholes. Those loopholes already are beginning to close. The Legislature, responding to the fallout from other controversial initiatives, passed a law this year intended to bring more transparency to the initiative process.

Read the rest here.

Washington Attorney General Argues No Right to Privacy for Petition Signers

Gearing up for the April 28th hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court over the attempt to block the release of names of people who signed petitions to negate an expansion of gay rights, lawyers for Washington state filed briefs arguing that people who sign petitions have no right to privacy.

In September U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that releasing the petition names would violate the individual's constitutional right to engage in political speech anonymously. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the lower court's decision, declaring that petition signing is not an anonymous act and allowing disclosure of the signer's identities.

The U.S. Supreme Court stayed the decision pending its ruling.

Legal scholars anticipate the decision could have far-reaching effect on the state's initiative and referendum process as well as other open government laws, such as the disclosure of political campaign contributors.

Read more here.

The Argument Against Opening Initiative Signatures to Public Scrutiny

Columnist Thomas D. Elias makes his case for keeping initiative petition signatures secret here. He argues initiative signers may not realize their name will be made public as an advocate for a particular cause, and that if such information is disclosed, the individual could become a target for retaliation and retribution by political opponents.

Washington Senate Votes to Make Voter Petitions Public Records

Washington Senators voted 28-20 to make voter petitions public records, including the names and addresses of people who sign initiatives and referenda.

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will decide whether the people who signed Referendum 71 petitions should have their names publicly disclosed. Referendum 71 sought to overturn an expanded gay rights law.

For more about the bill, click here.

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Washington Referendum 71 Petition Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Doe v. Reed, the case to determine whether the names of Washington voters who signed a ballot petition for Referendum 71 can be made public. The referendum sought to overturn expanded rights for same-sex couples, and supporters of gay rights filed a public records request for the names of those who signed the petition. Referendum sponsors objected, saying the signers would be harassed.

Meanwhile a Washington state legislative committee is considering competing bills over the dispute. One would provide an exemption to the state's Public Records Act for the names and addresses on initiative or referendum petitions; the other would declare them public records.

Read more here.

Update: U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Release of Referendum 71 Petitioners

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has temporarily blocked Washington state officials from releasing the Referendum 71 ballot petitions.  Referendum 71 is a ballot initiative asking Washington voters to approve or reject the state's law that grants domestic partners the same legal rights as married heterosexuals.   

Kennedy's order will remain in effect while he considers a request by a pro-marriage group that asked him to reverse the appellate court ruling, which had order the names released.  

Get more information here. 

Follow Up: Ninth Circuit Orders Release of Referendum 71 Petitions in Washington

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of a Thurston County Superior Court judge granting a temporary restraining order against Sam Reed concerning compliance with a public records request for copies of past initiative petitions, saying that order relied upon an incorrect legal standard.  That means the Washington's Referendum 71 petitions must be released pursuant to a public records request.   

Referendum 71 is an effort to overturn a Washington bill granting state registered domestic partners all rights, responsibilities and obligations granted or imposed by state law on married couples.

Click here for the Ninth Circuit's order.  

Release of Washington Referendum 71 Initiative Signatures Stayed Pending Appeal

Until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hears the dispute over Referendum 71, an effort to overturn a bill granting state registered domestic partners all rights, responsibilities and obligations granted or imposed by state law on married couples, state election officials cannot release the signatures and addresses of the people who signed 11 statewide initiatives ruled Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks.

The Olympian reports:  "Hicks said there is a clear conflict between the state Supreme Court's likely interpretation of state public-records law and what U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle ruled last month in the dispute over releasing names and signatures of voters who signed Referendum 71."

Get the full report here. 

The Petition Clause Takes a Beating in Missouri

The people elected to make laws in Missouri are trying to make it more difficult for voters to make laws themselves.

The General Assembly’s quest to restrict ballot initiatives could cause a clash between the people’s constitutional rights and the legislature’s constitutional powers.

In addition to general free speech rights, the Missouri Constitution specifically states that people have the right to enact laws and constitutional amendments through initiatives, independent of the General Assembly.

Yet the legislature also has the power to prescribe the details of how that is done.

So on Feb. 28, the House voted 107-41 to pass legislation that would impose several new requirements on the people who gather petition signatures. The bill, H.B. 1763, would:

• Require petition circulators to be Missouri residents and U.S. citizens.
• Prohibit them from being paid based on the number of signatures they gather.
• Bar them from simultaneously collecting signatures for more than one initiative.
• Require them to register with the secretary of state’s office before they start collecting signatures rather than before the deadline to turn them in, as is currently the case.

The legislation now heads to the Senate, where a similar proposal already is pending on this week’s debate calendar.

More here.