Los Angeles Times Editorializes Against Petition Privacy

The Los Angeles Times of February 1 has this editorial, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should decide Doe v Reed in favor of the state of Washington. The issue is whether Washington state should turn over the names and addresses of people who sign referendum petitions to people who want to put those names and addresses on a web page.

The editorial says that unlike voting, signing a petition takes place in public. The weakness in that argument is that signing a petition does not necessarily take place in public. Some petitions are circulated among like-minded groups, at meetings of such groups. Not all petition signatures are gathered in public spaces. Also there is a big difference between having one’s signature and address seen by, at most, 20 people who sign the same sheet below the signature of a voter who wishes privacy, and having one’s signature and address posted to a web page. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.


Comments

Los Angeles Times Editorializes Against Petition Privacy — No Comments

  1. independent nominating petitions are the only vehicle as of right granted to registered non-enrolled voters in NYS. Party members have private nominating elections as of right and of course while non-enrolled independent voters may be invited to participate in these private primary elections paid for by the general public, the non-enrolled independent voters does not have that option as of right and therefore is unconstitutionally deprived of equal protection of the election law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.