Why do I fell like the first four posts are all by the same person? Cybil is alive and well on the internets.

@1: Was that tongue-in-cheek? Because if so, it's pretty funny.

@2: Signing a petition is a legislative act because it is necessary for the legislation to become law. If the petitions are not signed, the measure cannot advance to be voted by the people, who then ratify it so that it becomes enforceable. Now if upholding existing law is "activist," I guess, so be it...

Explaining this another way, the signing of the petition is a part of the legislative process that cannot be skipped, cannot be replaced, and absolutely should be public. The reasons for this are obvious, and have little to do with "intimidating signers": so that we can publicly verify the signatures as correct, so we can verify the government is not excluding signatures that are indeed valid, and so that we know if special interests are informing or manipulating our legislative process.

This additional fact should be obvious, though it is not relevant to the legal deliberations: that the signers of this particular piece of public legislation are behaving so selfishly as to overlook these obvious long-term implications for government transparency just so they can avoid ever being asked about their attempts to legislate for us.

You know, McKenna is pissing me off with his suit against the recent health care legislation that has passed, but I have to give him a modicum of respect for standing with the Washington Coalition for Open Gov't, etc.

Basically I'm saying kudos for being a hardline conservative instead of a conservative who's all for less gov't intrusion except for when it comes to "eww teh gayez!"

you sign the petition in public, it's a pubic record, and it's a public statement of your beliefs. it's not the ballot box. stand behind your free speech and your right to be assholes, you chicken shit assholes.

"terrorism" my ass, troll.

IN OTHER WORDS, we don't have the right to legislate without also holding up the responsibilities it entails.

Many states - in fact, a majority - do not have provisions that allow their citizens to directly rewrite their state laws and thus expose other citizens to the force of the state. In those states, the people who support given laws voice their support through their elected representative, whose position is public, while they can have their personal position remain private. This is one of the advantages of legislating through representative - rather than direct - democracy. The supporters of this legislation have this right too.

In Washington, your actual vote on a given initiative is also secret, so the people of our state have the right to have their position remain private.

But public records laws ensure that initiative measures are written and supported by the people - and not merely the manifestations of a tyrannical state government or corrupt special interests. Perhaps more important, it ensures that the Secretary of State is not counting signatures according to his personal views on the legislation being submitted. It's a check on his oversight powers.

This argument really is pretty open-and-shut that way.

"BullShit.
Not even cleverly disguised bullshit, at that.
The signatures are certified by the State before they are released."

Yes. But how do you know the State is certifying signatures that are actually valid? How do you know it's rejecting signatures that actually are not?

I guess the troll has far more faith in government than I do... (or, for that matter, than Rob McKenna does...)

"In other words, the question the court will consider is this: Can a bunch of citizens sign their names and addresses to an initiative that would circumscribe the rights of other citizens, and then demand that those signatures and addresses not be made public?"

No, no, no, no, no. If that's the question the courts are considering than there's a serious problem here. The question is whether the petition process should be transparent in *all* cases or in *no* cases. When this is the question, the nature of the petition that brought the issue to court should be irrelevant. If yours is the question, then all the justices will simply vote based on how they feel about gay rights and we will all lose. (And I'll bet you a shiny nickel that's what's going to happen).

@14: The dumb is just... so overwhelming. I actually do believe public votes on referenda and initiatives should be public record as well. But that's really not the matter at hand here.

The issue at hand is whether or not the people who write initiatives should be able to lie about who they are. Whether they be good-intentioned but fearful people like the ones who signed this one, or whether they be the HomoLiberal tyrants you fear.

Do you really believe these signatures - signatures on all petitions - should be secret, that we should abolish public records laws? Really?

I know you're probably getting carried away with the ol' bigot party line, as usual, and that's fine. This is the internet after all. But think it through a little bit... this is obviously not a good thing for anyone who distrusts the government and is aware of its penchant for being corrupted.

@15, Thank you. The questions presented do not address the substance of the initiative. The questions presented are (1) whether strict scrutiny applies, and (2) if it does, has it been satisfied. That's it.

Of course the substance of the initiative will be argued and written about (as I've mentioned before, read Thomas' Citizens United dissent for a preview), but that is much different than the formal question that is presented.

@15: Exactly right. But this case may also set precedent for other public records laws. BIgots might have innocently intended to defend their intellectual cowardice, but if our public records laws are overturned, it's not hard argue all legislation should be drafted behind closed doors. It's really the exact same argument. It goes something like this:

I mean, after all, why not? We wouldn't want our elected officials being intimidated by those who disagree with the decisions they make, right? They should be allowed to make laws for the people without the hateful, intolerant discrimination of HomoLiberal fascists or anyone else. And we certainly wouldn't want corporations intimidate by HomoLiberal oppression from passing them campaign cash. God forbid. Closed door government is good government!! (I should have added random line breaks.)

@19: Fair enough. I'll take this as caving in, and that's enough for me. Thanks for considering my thoughts on this.

@20: Ahahaha, it never gets old. Do you take anything seriously? Is it all childish games to you? I figure you expect everyone to take your opinions seriously, or be declared intolerant. I guess forgive me for trying to reason with the stupid... But speaking as a matter of tone, we need to be able to hear out those we disagree with and appreciate their concerns, not dismiss them.

I try to understand that the supporters of R-71 are afraid of being targeted by civil rights groups for choosing to support this legislation. I get that. I would be fearful too. But the problem is that this arguably legitimate fear must also be weighed against the important principle of keeping our government free from corruption.

Without signature privacy, those against gay marriage still have means to make laws and be free from discrimination: they can communicate with their representatives, and they can vote for representatives that share their bigoted viewpoints and will enact them into law if elected. Their representatives' votes will thus be public, but private individuals not personally participating in law-making will remain private.

I actually do believe votes that change laws - those conducted on initiatives and referenda - should be public. I can tell you wanted to box me in with this, but you did so without knowing my other positions, so yeah, that argument collapsed. But that whole discussion is totally beside the point, which is not being talked about because... well... cowardice, perhaps? I don't know. I know I'm not here to "win" this conversation. If you really do believe laws like this should be made in secret, I'd like to further understand why.

I believe your concerns on this are, by all means, reasonable and worth further examination. I can't force you or anyone else to treat my concerns the same way. But I can try to understand where you're coming from, no matter how difficult you might try to make it.

if you don't want to be confronted or harassed at your home, don't petition for a law that would encourage people to come to your home to confront and harass you.

Yep, you're so right. I think going through all the work of killing me is more difficult than just letting me benefit from the same rights as you.