ACLJ Urges Supreme Court to Protect First Amendment Rights of Petition Signers in Wash. State Ballot

WASHINGTON, March 5, 2010—A court decision could make your personal information public if you sign a petition.   That's why the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) urged the Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday to protect the First Amendment rights of petitioners to remain anonymous when participating in ballot measures. 

In its amicus brief filed Thursday, the ACLJ asked the high court to overturn a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that could allow Washington state to release the identities and personal information of residents who signed petitions challenging whether to extend traditional marriage rights to same-sex partnerships.

"The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct a damaging decision that threatens the constitutional protections afforded to political speech," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.  "The process of initiating legislation is constitutionally protected as well.  To force petitioners who oppose controversial ballot measures to disclose their identities as well as personal information is not only wrong, but violates core political speech rights protected by the First Amendment."

The case evolved after advocates of a recently enacted Washington state law dubbed the "everything but marriage law" sought to disclose the names and personal information of those residents who signed petitions opposing the measure-which extended traditional marriage benefits to same-sex couples. 

Supporters of traditional marriage signed petitions to have the law put to a vote of the people before it could take affect.  A federal district court ordered Washington state could disclose the names and personal information of petition signers. 

In its friend-of-the-court brief filed with the high court, the ACLJ argues that circulating and signing referenda and initiative petitions constitutes core political speech and are entitled, under the First Amendment, to advocate for political causes anonymously.  The ACLJ also contends that the right of anonymous political participation is every bit as important as the secret ballot.

The ACLJ brief states:  "There is no meaningful First Amendment distinction between circulating ballot initiative petitions, signing them, and voting for them once they qualify for the ballot.  All three activities are indispensable to the power of the people to initiate legislation.  Stripping the right to anonymity from any of the three activities threatens an essential function of popular sovereignty. The state's interest in protecting the integrity of ballot initiatives does not come close to justifying so severe a violation of First Amendment rights."

You can read the ACLJ amicus brief here.

The ACLJ brief also notes that advocates of the "everything but marriage law" admitted wanting to confront those who opposed the measure and conduct what's been described as "uncomfortable" conversations with them because of their opposition to the law. The ACLJ argues that such disclosures put petitioners at risk of severe harassment and retaliation-not unlike what happened in California to those who supported Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage.  In addition to infringing upon the free speech and advocacy rights of people who signed the petition, the ACLJ also contends that the appeals court decision offends their right to political association by deterring participation and effectively choking off dissent.

The case before the high court is Doe #1 v. Reed  (No. 09-559) and oral arguments are scheduled for April.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.  The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org. 

 -30-