Supreme Court: Disclosure of Petition Signers Not Generally a Free Speech Violation
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that disclosure of petition signatures is not, as a general matter, a free speech violation, but it could violate the First Amendment in specific cases.
The court is allowing a more focused First Amendment challenge in a Washington State case involving a referendum to repeal a law expanding domestic partner benefits, SCOTUSblog reports. “The challengers get to try and make out the claim that this is a special case,” the blog explains.
Under Washington’s public records law, the names of anyone who signs a petition for a statewide referendum must be disclosed upon request. Supporters of traditional marriage, who fear harassment if their names are released, contend the law infringes their First Amendment right to anonymity.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion (PDF). The state has an interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process, Roberts said, and public disclosure of signatures is substantially related to that goal.
“Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures,” he wrote. “Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot.”
The petition signers’ more specific objections of harassment, however, may be pressed before the federal trial court, Roberts said in the 8-1 ruling.
Five justices filed concurring opinions. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred only in the judgment, saying he doubts that the First Amendment is implicated in the case. But if it does apply, he said, it does not prohibit disclosure.
A dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas said public disclosure of petition signatures unconstitutionally chills citizen participation in the referendum process.
