U.S. District Court Judge Order Names Collected For Anti-Gay Referendum 71 Be Released; Appeal By Protect Marriage Washington Likely

U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle ruled today in Tacoma, Washington that names of signers of Referendum 71, who sought to repeal domestic partner rights, should be made public under the state Public Records Act. The Olympian reports that proponents of rights for same-sex partners hailed the ruling as a win against political secrecy but an appeal is already in the works from opponents of rights for same-sex couples. “We’re going to appeal it,” said Gary Randall, president of the Faith & Freedom Network and an executive board member of Protect Marriage Washington, which sued Secretary of State Sam Reed over his intention to release the names under his reading of state open records law. Washington Families Standing Together, a coalition of groups that supported passage of R-71 and the expansion of rights for same-sex couples, had sought release of the names after being told some signers of the petitions felt they had been misled into signing it. Anne Levinson, chair of Washington Families, said that “Providing the public information about signers of petitions and contributors to campaigns serves important public education and anti-fraud goals for elections. The Court’s ruling today is a victory for all those who care about ensuring fair and legitimate elections. Had the Court agreed that these ballot measure petitions could be kept secret because the referendum’s sponsors were bothered by some who voiced opposition to their point of view, it would have set a terrible precedent for future elections.” An appeal would go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But Protect Washington could conceivably ask Judge Settle, a conservative from Shelton who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, to reconsider his finding. The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled the signatures could be disclosed under the state law, which led a Thurston County judge to lift his injunction against releasing names for several other initiatives sponsored by Tim Eyman. But the Supreme Court ruling also sent the Protect Washington case back to Tacoma where conservative activists waged further arguments that threats to petition signers merited an exception to the Public Records Act. Randall said his group believes Settle is wrong in not providing an exception. Protect Marriage Washington had filed claims with the federal court asserting harassment and threats that put supporters of the rights-repeal in fear of retaliation and argues that “We feel that people deserve protection on this particular case. We’re not opposed to transparency and disclosure. In fact all of us believe in that. But this is an exceptional case and we are dealing with people who most – not all – who are good people. But there are some gay activists who are not. I believe there is a risk to some of our people by some activists, not all.’’ In response to the Protect Washington claims of harassment, Levinson said that “The irony should not go unnoticed that these right-wing groups promote divisive measures and then demand a special right to secrecy because the strong disagreement that follows makes them uncomfortable. Yet these same groups and individuals who say they may be harmed by the public having information about an election are never troubled that the very laws they try to get passed through these campaigns result in real harm to LGBT individuals and families. These groups sponsor measures with an agenda of taking away rights and then sue with exaggerated tales of victimization in an effort to hide from public view and to take away the ability of those who stand up against them to protect themselves and their fellow citizens. The Court found that the assertions they made here were no more valid than they have been in any other state where they have tried the same arguments.” In his ruling, Settle acknowledged there was evidence of hostility toward advocates on both sides of the issue, writing that “While Plaintiffs have not shown serious and widespread threats, harassment, or reprisals against the signers of R-71, or even that such activity would be reasonably likely to occur upon the publication of their names and contact information, they have developed substantial evidence that the public advocacy of traditional marriage as the exclusive definition of marriage, or the expansion of rights for same sex partners, has engendered hostility in this state, and risen to violence elsewhere, against some who have engaged in that advocacy. This should concern every citizen and deserve the full attention of law enforcement when the line gets crossed and an advocate becomes the victim of a crime or is subjected to a genuine threat of violence. The right of individuals to speak openly and associate with others who share common views without justified fear of harm is at the very foundation of preserving a free and open society.’’ But in his order, Settle concluded that “The facts before the Court in this case, however, do not rise to the level of demonstrating that a reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals exists as to the signers of R-71, now nearly two years after R-71 was submitted to the voters in Washington State.” R-71 asked voters to uphold or reject legislation in 2009 that gave all the state rights of marriage to same-sex couples who put their names on the state domestic-partnership registry. R-71 narrowly qualified for the ballot and later passed into law with nearly 113,000 votes (just over 53 percent support) – ensuring all the Washington state rights of marriage for registered couples. There are 380 couples registered as of today in Washington. The Office of the Secretary of State manages elections and also the domestic partners registry. Spokesman Brian Zylstra said the agency was still trying to sort out how and when it might release the names in question.