Release R-71 signatures, court says, but appeal planned

Protect Marriage Washington, which collected the signatures to get Referendum 71 on the November ballot, said it will appeal Thursday's federal appeals-court ruling that cleared the way for public release of the names of those who signed petitions for the measure.

"That particular group of judges saw the law one way; we'll take it to the next group of judges that may have the opportunity to see it the correct way," said Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for the conservative religious organization.

Referendum 71 will ask voters to approve or reject the Legislature's latest expansion of the state's domestic-partnership law, which grants marriage-like benefits to gay and some senior couples.

Thursday's ruling by a three-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California reversed a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Ben Settle in Tacoma, who had blocked release of the petition signatures.

Gay-rights activists and others have promised to post the names and addresses of signers online for anyone to see.

In its brief order, the appeals panel said Settle used a wrong legal standard in granting a preliminary injunction that barred release of the petitions, and that the injunction therefore must be reversed. The judges said they would issue an opinion later explaining their reasoning.

Protect Marriage Washington had argued that petition signatures are protected free speech under the First Amendment, and as such should be shielded from public release. The group said it wanted to keep the petitions out of public view because it feared harassment from gay-rights supporters.

Judge Settle had sided with the group, holding that releasing the names could have a chilling effect on signers' constitutional rights.

Washington's Attorney General's Office, which represented the secretary of state before the Circuit Court panel, argued that voters had approved the Public Records Act and that signature gathering is a very public process — unlike the private act of voting.

The state told the panel that the public strongly supports transparency in government and expects the release of public records.

Visual snapshots of the more than 9,000 petition sheets bearing the names and addresses of signers have been put on DVDs and are available from the Secretary of State's Office to requesters who pay a fee.

Brian Murphy, a gay-rights activist who was one of the first to promise to post the names to his online site, whosigned.org, said there's probably not enough time to do so before the Nov. 3 election. But he said he plans to post them as soon as he can.

"This is an ongoing conversation," Murphy said. "These families and couples are living in our state and will still be here after the election."

An appeal by Protect Marriage of Thursday's ruling would be to the full body of the 9th Circuit.

In the meantime, a related court matter also was pending Thursday.

The state wants Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks to release Referendum 71 from among the initiatives and referendums covered by a temporary restraining order he issued on Wednesday.

That order, the result of a lawsuit by initiative promoter Tim Eyman, blocked the release of all referendum and initiative petitions pending Thursday's 9th Circuit decision. But Hicks said any hearing on the state's request wouldn't come until at least Monday, after he's had a chance to read the Circuit Court panel's reasoning in its ruling.

Eyman sued to block release of names on petitions for 11 initiatives over the last decade, most of them his, after a lobbyist requested the names. Hicks told attorneys for Eyman and for the state that he would hear their arguments once the 9th Circuit ruled on Referendum 71.

"These petitions are not like a secret ballot, but amount to taking part in our legislative process, which is required to be open and accountable," Secretary of State Sam Reed said.

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.

Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com