U.S. Supreme Court: All petition signatures secret, for now

Names on all voter petitions in Washington state are blocked from release for possibly up to a year, hung up by a U.S. Supreme Court order Tuesday that keeps Referendum 71 signatures out of public hands.

In a rare move that hinges on the question of petition signers' right to free speech, the court, in an 8-1 ruling, barred the Secretary of State from releasing names of those who signed petitions to get the latest expansion of Washington's domestic-partnership law onto the November ballot.

Within hours of the Supreme Court ruling, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks continued his broad prohibition against release of all referendum and initiative petitions currently under request — including many sponsored by initiative promoter Tim Eyman — until the federal case is addressed.

The Supreme Court's order will remain in effect until the high court decides — perhaps well into next year — whether to hear the case.

Protect Marriage Washington, the religious conservative group that collected the signatures and wants to repeal the domestic-partnership legislation, had sued the state to block release of the names, saying disclosure would chill free speech.

The Secretary of State's Office has said all along that signatures are subject to disclosure under the state's public-records act and that signers give up any rights to privacy when they sign voter petitions.

Even before the signature-gathering process began, gay-rights activist Brian Murphy announced this summer that he would post the names of petition signers on a searchable Web site, whosigned.org. In recent days he's fielded questions from people about whether he imagined the resulting controversy could reach the Supreme Court level.

"I did consider it but didn't think it was a high probability, given that the public-records laws in this state are so well established," he said. Murphy said he still plans to post the names online if and whenever they are made available.

To him, what's at stake is not the rights of petition signers but the rights of domestic partners who would lose benefits if Ref. 71 is defeated.

"Our most important consideration now should be the people whose rights are being voted on and potentially could be taken away in the next few weeks," he said.

Constitutional-law experts say the high court's action does not signal where justices might come down on this First Amendment question should it decide to hear the case, but rather maintains the status quo established when U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle of Tacoma ruled this summer to block release of the names. The state requested an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The experts point out that once those names are made public, there is no taking them back — something akin to the un-ringing of a bell.

Protect Marriage Washington called this its biggest triumph yet in a contentious back-and-forth legal drama.

"This is a victory for those 138,000 people who signed their names on the line because they wanted this issue on the ballot," said Gary Randall of Protect Marriage Washington, which collected the signatures and sued the state to block their release.

Petition signers "were immediately met with a strong position of harassment and intimidation," he said. "We believe there is merit in this case."

Ref. 71 asks voters to approve or reject the most recent expansion of the state's domestic-partnership law, granting marriagelike state benefits to registered gay and senior couples.

The Supreme Court's decision continues an order Justice Anthony Kennedy issued Monday. Kennedy, who oversees the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, had stayed an earlier ruling by a three-member panel of that court allowing the state to release the names. In the Supreme Court's order Tuesday, Justice John Paul Stevens favored allowing that ruling to stand.

Protect Marriage had appealed the 9th Circuit Court's decision to the Supreme Court.

The high court said its order will remain in effect while it considers filings from both sides in its decision about whether to hear that appeal.

James Bopp, attorney for Protect Marriage, said while he plans to make prompt filings, he doesn't expect the court to decide until at least next June whether it will accept the case.

"It's extremely rare to get an order like this," Bopp said. "The court apparently recognizes the important issues involved and the potentially devastating consequences of disclosure."

In a statement, Secretary of State Sam Reed said: "The Supreme Court is simply preserving the status quo while opponents of disclosure get their full day in court, and we respect that.

"We ... will do our very best to uphold the voters' desire for transparent and accountable government."

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