The US Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 yesterday that signatories to statewide referendum petitions should be public information. The case, Doe v. Reed (see PDF), arose out of controversy surrounding Referendum 71 in Washington state and dealt with issues of free-speech and privacy. The decision upholds Washington's public-records law.
The decision, which was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said, "disclosing signatures help[s] protect the integrity of petitioning by ensuring that only valid signatures are counted toward getting an issue on the ballot," according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenting vote and wrote in his dissent that he found the public-records law unconstitutional "because there will always be a less restrictive means by which Washington can vindicate its stated interest in preserving the integrity of its referendum process," according to the Washington Post.
The case has its roots in a 2009 law established by Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, called the "Everything But Marriage Act," according to CNN. This law granted same-sex couples in Washington state all the same rights as heterosexual couples, except the right to marry. In response to the law, an anti-gay marriage group called Protect Marriage Washington collected signatures to force a referendum vote on the issue. Voters ultimately approved Referendum 71, which maintained the state's law and was the first time gay rights were upheld by voters in any state in the US.
In Doe v. Reed, gay rights opponents sought to overturn Washington's public-records law to prevent names signed on the referendum petition from being released. They argued that making the signatures public information could open those individuals to harassment or retaliation, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. James Bopp, an attorney for gay rights opponents, said that opponents of same-sex marriage "have been subject to death threats, vandalism, and even the loss of their jobs" in states where names on petitions have been released, according to the Seattle Times.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that in specific cases, petition-signers could ask courts to withhold their names from the public if they could prove a "reasonable probability" that disclosure would subject them to harassment, according to the Washington Post. However, several concurring opinions suggested that such claims are unlikely to succeed. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance." He continued, "requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed," reported the Washington Post.
Media Resources: Doe v. Reed; Washington Post 6/25/10; Feminist Daily Newswire 2/19/10; CNN 6/24/10; Seattle Times 6/25/10; Salt Lake Tribune 6/25/10
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case.
UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
10/30/2014 North Dakota Medical Students Speak Out Against Measure 1 - Medical students at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences are asking North Dakotans to vote no on Measure 1, a personhood measure on the state ballot this fall.
The students issued published a letter in the Grand Forks Herald stating that they opposed Measure 1 in part because they are against "the government's taking control of the personal health care decisions of its citizens." Nearly 60 UND School of Medicine students signed the letter, citing concerns over the "very broad and ambiguous language" used in the proposed amendment, which has no regard for serious and life-threatening medical situations such as ectopic pregnancies.
Measure 1 would change the North Dakota state constitution to create an "inalienable right to life" for humans "at any stage of development" - including the moment of fertilization and conception. . . .