Direct Democracy Petitions Aren't Anonymous

Those who want to keep the names of those who sign initiative and referendum petitions anonymous are trotting out a new argument. Petitioning the government is protected under the first amendment and the courts have held that the ability to petition the government anonymously is subject to constitutional protection.

That's true. But protection of anonymous dissent has nothing to do with the case of referendum and initiative petitions. Such petitions are not in any way, shape or form an anonymous petition of the government. Under the law, people are signing their names and listing their addresses -- with the full intention of having the measure submitted to the government. 

What those who object to relase of names (specifically in the case of those who signed the Referendum 71 petition) are demanding is not a protection of anonymity but a special privilege for the government. Their argument boils down to this: It's OK for the government to see who is signing the petitions but it's not OK for the public to see that.

I understand why they're making that argument: many gay rights supporters have shamefully -- in some cases criminally -- harassed supporters of measures such as Referendum 71 and California's Prop 8, and it's natural to want to protect people from that kind of behavior. (Gay right supporters would be smart to reverse field and stop publicizing the names of those who sign these measures -- it's only hardening opposition).But the way to protect such people is to enforce the laws against vandalism and harassment.Instead, gay rights opponents want the courts to sanction a violation of basic principles of open, accountable government. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has -- temporarily and unwisely -- blocked the public release of names in Washington state. But here's betting that the court will reverse itself once it has the ability to study the question more closely.