9th Circuit: Referendum supporters’ suit to stop Washington from releasing names is moot

    Doe v. Reed, No. 11-35854 ( Before: Harry Pregerson, A. Wallace Tashima, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Tashima; Concurrence by Judge N.R. Smith)

    Plaintiffs Protect Marriage Washington (“PMW”), John Doe #1, and John Doe #2 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek to enjoin Defendants, the Secretary of State and Public Records Officer of the State of Washington, from releasing the names of people who signed petitions supporting a Washington referendum. These petitions are already widely available on the internet. We dismiss this case as moot because we cannot grant Plaintiffs effective relief.


  • Posted: 10/23/2012
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family

  • Tags: , , , ,

WA: Thurston judge OKs release of initiative petitions

“Judge blocks release of petition signers’ names in gay rights case”

WA: Court prohibits release of referendum petitions; will consider harassment exception

Federal judge dismisses pending motions in R-71 public records case

    Seattle Post-Intelligencer / Strange Bedfellows: “The secretary of state’s office said [Protect Marriage Washington] is again taking their arguments to Judge Benjamin Settle, who last September blocked release of the names of people who signed Referendum 71 petitions. That ruling set in motion the court case that ended up at the nation’s highest court. … Deputy Solicitor General Bill Collins, who is representing the Secretary of State in the ongoing Doe v. Reed litigation, reports that U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle has dismissed all pending motions in the R-71 public records case. He will await the official paperwork from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding its recent 8-1 opinion in the case and transferring jurisdiction back to his courtroom. At that point, Protect Marriage Washington will be able to re-file fresh motions to block release of the R-71 petitions.”


  • Posted: 07/22/2010
  • |
  • Category: Religious Liberty
  • |
  • Source: blog.seattlepi.com

  • Tags: , , , , ,

Federalist Society: Doe v. Reed – Post-decision SCOTUScast

Court case seeking protection for signers of pro-marriage petition

When it comes to online smut, privacy matters; when it comes to political speech, it doesn’t, says U.S. Supreme Court

    ChristianNewsWire: “Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, had the following comments: … ‘In June 2004, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower federal court decision which had upheld a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act, a law that would have required websites that commercially distribute pornography to take reasonable steps to keep kids away from the smut. In so doing, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that “blocking or filtering technology may be at least as successful as COPA would be in restricting minors’ access to harmful material online without imposing the burden on constitutionally protected speech that COPA imposes on adult users…” Specifically, the trial court found (in the words of the appellate court) that requiring adults to ‘identify themselves as a precondition to accessing disfavored speech’ would ‘likely…deter many adults from accessing that speech.”‘”


  • Posted: 06/28/2010
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: www.christiannewswire.com

  • Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Marriage petition case was not a defeat for traditional marriage

    Ken Klukowski writing at Townhall: “[The] Supreme Court dealt a setback to supporters of traditional marriage. But it’s not the defeat that gay-rights supporters (and many of their fans on the media) are hailing it as, and leaves open the possibility that traditional-marriage supporters may be the ones celebrating at the end. … The record of atrocious harassment in the wake of California’s Proposition 8 makes perfectly clear that these marriage supporters can make a strong case that they could be harassed. As such, by the standard the Court announced today, the marriage supporters should win.”


  • Posted: 06/25/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: townhall.com

  • Tags: , , ,

Supreme Court speaks with divided tongue: Doe v. Reed

    New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard analyzes Doe v. Reed, No. 09-559 (U.S. June 24, 2010) at LeonardLink: “My quick summary – Concur by Sotomayor with Ginsburg and Stevens – it should be difficult for plaintiffs to keep the names confidential; Concur by Alito – it should be easy for the plaintiffs to keep the names confidential; Concur by Stevens and Breyer – it should be difficult for plaintiffs to keep the names confidential; Concur by Scalia – originalist view of the First Amendment and characterization of petition signers as actually being involved in ‘legislating’ means there is only a weak First Amendment interest, if any, in keeping these names confidential. So Scalia is sees no problem with the statute, as such, and is very unfavorably disposed to the second claim. Dissent by Thomas – Strong First Amendment protection for privacy of petition signers, so statute violates the First Amendment. Interesting to see Thomas and Scalia sharply split.


  • Posted: 06/24/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: newyorklawschool.typepad.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

Supreme Court upholds Washington signature disclosure requirement for referendums, BUT

SCOTUSblog: This Term’s pending cases

Hope voiced for ruling in Ref. 71 case

Justice Scalia as campaign finance reform champion

Justices deciding whether Christians deserve bull’s-eye

The Gray Lady’s inconsistent defense of the First Amendment

Scalia notes that “democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage”

“Not so fast in Doe v. Reed: A partial dissent from some early reactions to today’s oral arguments”

Court skeptical on keeping petitioner IDs private

On Supreme Court’s Final Argument Day, First Amendment Dominates

Without Scalia, whither anonymity? John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, Argument recap

    Lyle Denniston writes at the SCOTUS Blog: “Justice Antonin Scalia, using history, sarcasm and political taunts, laid down a barrage of objections Wednesday to a plea that the Supreme Court create a new constitutional right of anonymity for individuals who sign petitions to get policy measures onto election ballots. When he was finished, the strong impression was that it might be exceedingly hard to gather a five-vote majority to establish such a right, even though the plea got the fervent support of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and some implied help from Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The oral argument was in John Doe # 1, et al., v. Reed, et al. (09-559).”


  • Posted: 04/28/2010
  • |
  • Category: Religious Liberty
  • |
  • Source: www.scotusblog.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

Neighbor against Neighbor: What right does the state have to reveal your signature on a political petition?

    Dick Carpenter writes at the Wall Street Journal: “Today the Supreme Court hears arguments in Doe v. Reed. The case is about ‘mandatory disclosure’—that is, whether the state of Washington may publicly release the names and addresses of citizens who signed a petition to place a referendum on domestic partnership legislation on the ballot . . . In short, my research reveals that forcing people to comply with disclosure rules in order to exercise their First Amendment rights means many will stay silent or uninvolved—with little or no benefit to the public. Mandatory disclosure laws don’t inform voters; they squelch speech.”


  • Posted: 04/28/2010
  • |
  • Category: Religious Liberty
  • |
  • Source: online.wsj.com

  • Tags: , , ,

High Court faces blockbuster cases as Stevens’ retirement nears

Washington’s battle over petitioner signatures goes to Supreme Court

Supreme Court to hear case on publicizing names of marriage supporters

High court mulls speech rights and more

Concerned Women for America files Supreme Court brief to protect privacy of petition signers

Concerned Women for America files Supreme Court brief to protect privacy of petition signers

Liberty Counsel Files Brief with High Court Supporting Privacy for Signers of Marriage Petition

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Referendum 71 case April 28

U.S. Supreme Court sets argument dates in key cases

Sign a petition, disclose your name?

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Washington Case on Release of Petition Signers

Supreme Court to hear Washington state R-71 signature disclosure case

Is there a constitutional right to sign a petition anonymously?

Protect Marriage Washington Asks Supreme Court to Continue to Protect Petition Signers

9th Circuit release opinion explaining Wash. ruling to release Referendum 71 names

Supreme Court continues order blocking disclosure of R-71 signatures, Stevens dissents

Supreme Court justice blocks release of R-71 petitions

Plea for petition signers’ privacy at the U.S. Supreme Court

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

9th Circuit lifts order blocking release of R-71 petitions

9th Circuit expedites Washington R-71 signature privacy case

Wash. to appeal signature ruling on “Protect Marriage” Referendum

Judge shields signatures on Washington “Protect Marriage” Referendum

Today: Tacoma judge may rule on release of identity of R-71 signers

Names, addresses of Referendum 71 donors not exempt from public disclosure

WA: “Gay-rights” group sues to block R-71; state rules supporters must disclose donors

“Order halts release of gay partners’ foes names in Wash.”

WA: Fight begins to keep names of referendum signers private

    “‘The State cannot allow the release of the names on the Referendum 71 petition when the purpose is to harass and intimidate people who are merely exercising their right to speak,’ Bopp stated in the release.

    Bopp, Jr. of Indiana-based Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom is lead counsel in the case, according to a press release. Attorney Stephen Pidgeon of Everett, who is associated with the Alliance Defense Fund, is expected to handle today’s proceeding.”


  • Posted: 07/29/2009
  • |
  • Category: ADF in the News
  • |
  • Source: www.heraldnet.com

  • Tags: , , ,

Protect Marriage Washington Files Suit to Prevent 138,500 Names from Being Posted Online By Foes of Traditional Marriage

Situational tolerance

    Washington State Rep. Matt Shea writing in The Spokesman-Review: “WhoSigned.org is promising to publish, on the Internet, personal information of those signing Referendum 71 to ‘prevent voter fraud’ and ‘foster discussion’ . . . Alliance Defense Fund is involved in a major lawsuit to stop such a flagrant misuse of public information. ADF has set up a hotline (1-800-655-6592) and website www.telladf.org/r71 for Washingtonians who believe they’ve suffered retaliation because their names appeared on WhoSigned.org.”


  • Posted: 07/06/2009
  • |
  • Category: Uncategorized
  • |
  • Source: www.spokesman.com

  • Tags: ,

Washington Homosexual Advocates Planning to “Out” Signers of Referendum Petition

“Gay rights” strategy of donor exposure raises privacy concerns

“Gay-rights group wants to name petition signers”