Support




Contact
Powered by
Movable Type

Supreme Court Blocks Disclosure of Anti-Gay-Marriage Petition Signers

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay which prohibits the release of the names of individuals who signed petitions for Washington's Referendum 71.

Referendum 71 was placed on the ballot to challenge the legislative expansion of domestic partnerships in Washington to include all the rights and responsibilities of marriage except for the name "marriage." Ordinarily, Washington releases the signatures of ballot referendum petitioners upon request because they are public documents, but the group mainly responsible for collecting the R-71 signatures sued to prevent their release in this instance.

The group argues (PDF) that "due to the highly charged nature of the topic of Referendum 71, (domestic partnerships, gay rights, the traditional definition of marriage, etc.) that the personal information on the petitions for Referendum 71 warrant particular protection." The idea is that the signers' First Amendment rights could be stifled if not stymied by disclosure, especially if we see the type of bad behavior which occurred around California's Prop 8.

A panel of the Ninth Circuit ultimately disagreed and ordered that the group could not prevent the release of the documents. But Justice Kennedy stepped in and referred the question to the full Court, which voted 8-1 to preserve the injunction until the parties have a chance to file a full petition for certiorari.

I've been chewing on this case for a few weeks now and I was initially sympathetic to the petition signers because of the Prop 8-like mischief that might follow disclosure. Now, some of that mischief was constitutionally protected, for example picketing and boycotts. But some of it was criminal, like vandalism and assault.

To the extent that signers want to avoid First Amendment activities like picketing by asserting their own First Amendment rights, the signers don't have a leg to stand on. It also creates a perverse incentive on the part of future petitioners to make every issue a highly contentious one.

I would be persuaded that the signers' First Amendment right to petition (as a form of speech and of redress) would be chilled if the signers' names were made public, except that in Washington the names of petition signers are routinely made public. So the signers knew—or should have known—that by participating they were making a public act. It's disingenuous to come out now and claim that their speech rights could be infringed after they've already exercised their speech rights.

And that was the key for me. If Olympia wants to pass a law which prohibits the release of signatures for ballot referenda, that's great. And then petition signers will have a reasonable belief that their names will not be disclosed. A few states have laws like that. On the other hand, states should be free to make that choice and Washington has decided not to give that protection.

Anyway, the practical result of the Supreme Court's stay is that the issue will not be resolved and the names will not be released before the November 3 election. At the moment R-71 appears likely to be approved, reconfirming the legislative expansion of domestic partnership rights. The Supreme Court's decision might be a blessing in disguise for folks hoping for approval. If bad behavior had been in the offing, backlash might have pushed the vote the other way.

I've tucked a poll under the fold.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:51 AM



Comments

1 As it stands in this case  I think you have to release them. But I would certainly support a law in my state that kept them private. People could sue to see the names for the sole purpose of establishing the validity of the signatures. Absolutely no publishing.

Posted by: Rocks at October 21, 2009 09:58 AM (Q1lie)

2 If made public, can anyone be prosecuted for 'hate' crimes against anyone who helped to back and finance a referendum?

I'm think of about the LDS church and all the crap that was thrown their way by the gay mafia regarding Prop 8 in Cal.


Posted by: Dave C at October 21, 2009 09:59 AM (qmecx)

3 The post-Prop 8 mischief is exactly why the signatures need to remain sealed. When participation in the democratic process is greeted with vandalism and sending white powder to Mormon temples, the equation changes.

If anything the post-Prop 8 actions are an implicit threat to opponents of gay rights. I don't know about anyone else, but this Mormon is very loathe to give in to what amounts to domestic terrorism.

Posted by: fb111a at October 21, 2009 09:59 AM (QseEi)

4 hey.. everything is centered.

Posted by: Dave C at October 21, 2009 10:00 AM (qmecx)

5 If the signatures are secret, how the hell do we know if they're real? I say if your want something enough to sign, be man enough to own up to it.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2009 10:01 AM (OlN4e)

6 "Intimidation? You wanna see some INTIMIDATION? I got a barrel full right here. Now get offa my lawn."

Posted by: mojo at October 21, 2009 10:15 AM (g1cNf)

7 We're all centrists now!  Frankly, I'd rather have red on me.

The Ninth Circuit got overturned?  The hell you say. 

Gabe, I do understand and am sympathetic to your argument.  However, the Prop. 8 response demonstrated that there is a reasonable ground to anticipate responses starting with harassment and scaling up to physical assault for those whose names are on that petition.  The petitioners have every damn right to believe that they will not be the targets of criminal actions for exercising their rights.  Good cause has been shown for blocking release in this case.

On a more practical level, I'm against the release of name/address information for any petition due to identity theft reasons.

Posted by: alexthechick at October 21, 2009 10:16 AM (SHHaV)

8 If anything the post-Prop 8 actions are an implicit threat to opponents of gay rights.

Implicit?  There was nothing implicit about the threats.  The question about hate crime prosecutions is also completely valid.


Posted by: alexthechick at October 21, 2009 10:18 AM (SHHaV)

9 If a signer is assaulted or even picketed for signing a petition why is that not prosecuted at the federal level as a civil rights violation? It would be interesting to see the ACLU argue that the civil rights of citizens was violated because they were targeted when they expressed their opinions on a constitutionally protected way. Of course, the ACLU would not take this stance.

Posted by: Michael K at October 21, 2009 10:23 AM (H6VxR)

10

opponents of gay rights.

See "question, begging the".

Posted by: flenser at October 21, 2009 10:24 AM (6KiM2)

11 I say that all petitioners names should be released as soon as they require everyone to vote in person that is physically able to do so and show proper id. 

Posted by: polynikes at October 21, 2009 10:26 AM (m2CN7)

12

On a more practical level, I'm against the release of name/address information for any petition due to identity theft reasons.

Had not thought about that argument. That makes alot of sense, but I am wondering if that was included in the record below or the argument was raised in the District Court. If not, it will not be considered by the Court. However, that may be a very persuasive argument for modification of existing laws. You will always need some type of identity specific information on a petition to insure that a lawful voter signed it (unless its an ACCORN petition, then hell, the Dallas Cowboys can sign it.).

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 21, 2009 10:29 AM (V9SYy)

13 If you're signing a public petition and the law says that the names are released as a matter of course, why should these folks be an exception? There's no reasonable expectation of privacy here.

Posted by: JEA at October 21, 2009 10:30 AM (H7yeS)

14

New poll!

All in favor of this blog being centered?

Leftists?

Paranoid and mentally ill (aka "Rightist, see Thomas Frank in the WSJ for todays insults)?

All who vote for the last and wrong option will have their real names and address printed.

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 21, 2009 10:31 AM (e3Kgg)

15

Personal information should only be released to people responsible for verifying that the signatures are legal and no one else.

Posted by: Vic at October 21, 2009 10:32 AM (CDUiN)

16 I personally think it's a states-rights issue, but prefer that names remain under lock and key.  Mostly because of the way that the proposition 8 opponents went after anyone they could find that had signed the petition or had voted for it.  What they did would have been classed as hate crimes and would have been if the roles were reversed.

Posted by: Deathknyte at October 21, 2009 10:33 AM (BOXNP)

17

ok, I fix.

 

I will also not yell like Bob Uecker in that Miller Lite commercial.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 21, 2009 10:34 AM (WvXvd)

18 Confused me Gabe; "At the moment R-71 appears likely to be approved, reconfirming the legislative expansion of domestic partnership rights. The Supreme Court's decision might be a blessing in disguise for folks hoping for approval. If bad behavior had been in the offing, backlash might have pushed the vote the other way ", the people who signed the referendum were pro R-71 - why would the militant gay rights types attack someone who signed a referendum to expand gay rights?

Posted by: Jean at October 21, 2009 10:34 AM (vb5IK)

19

The reason we have secret ballots is to prevent voter intimidation. How is this different again ?

Posted by: Diogenes at October 21, 2009 10:36 AM (EOnG1)

20 5 If the signatures are secret, how the hell do we know if they're real? I say if your want something enough to sign, be man enough to own up to it.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2009 10:01 AM (OlN4e)


Obviously someone needs to know that they are real. And also, that obviously has to be the Governmental officials responsible for verifying that they are real.



Posted by: Diogenes at October 21, 2009 10:37 AM (EOnG1)

21 What's the purpose in publicizing the names? To allow individuals to be targeted?

Let's just get rid of secret ballots while we're at it. We don't want people to be able to support a cause without other people being able to attack them for it.

Posted by: Original Roy at October 21, 2009 10:38 AM (jV0wG)

22 Dave spoils all our fun. But at least he's wearing pants today.

Posted by: Mama AJ at October 21, 2009 10:39 AM (e3Kgg)

23 The public right to know the names of the signatories on a public petition outweighs the risk that the signatories might be subjected to illegal behavior on the part of their political opponents.

Posted by: steve at October 21, 2009 10:39 AM (09ntO)

24 Opponents of the law were the ones who signed the petition, but a "Yes" vote is required to uphold the law.

It is a little confusing.

Posted by: fb111a at October 21, 2009 10:39 AM (QseEi)

25 Between card check and Obama's DoJ - secret ballots may be on the endangered list.

Posted by: Jean at October 21, 2009 10:40 AM (6Njk9)

26 15

Personal information should only be released to people responsible for verifying that the signatures are legal and no one else.

Posted by: Vic at October 21, 2009 10:32 AM (CDUiN)


This person has the right of it.

Posted by: Diogenes at October 21, 2009 10:40 AM (EOnG1)

27 Signing an (proposed) initiative petition and voting on said petition are completely different political acts.

Posted by: steve at October 21, 2009 10:41 AM (09ntO)

28

Obviously the signatures aren't going to be secret from the state agency in charge of certification of the petition, so no one is suggesting absolute secrecy - that's just silly.

The question is, should the names of petition signers be released to the general public?  You should note that the Supreme Court just decided 8-1 to uphold the temporary injunction against this action - they would not have done that if they did not think there was a very real chance that this will be upheld in a full court hearing. 

Free Speech in politics is the heart of the 1st Amendment, and the Supreme Court has a 2 century history of not only prohibiting absolute bans, but also of prohibiting anything that would act to bring about a "chilling effect" on free speech.  This is why the secret ballot is so important, after all - an open ballot can never be truly free. 

Opening the petition signatures up to the public (as opposed to the government agency assigned to certify them) would *destroy* the petition process, and in fact that is it's only true purpose.  The petition process exists so that issues which are not currently amenable to the legistlative majority can still make it onto the ballot.  (if they were supported by a legislative majority, then of course they would simply be enacted by the state legislature)

A legislative majority, whether or not it is a real majority, always has a vast amount of coercive resources at it's disposal.  This is not only confined to those activist groups which can be funded and directed sotto voce by those legislators who would be inconvenienced by a viable petition drive; it is not hard to see how it would quickly grow to more blatant measures.

For example, once a private person who signed the petition is singled out for picketing and other abuse, how much time would pass before a disturbance could be provoked?  How much time before police were dispatched to permanently park outside that door just to "keep the peace"???  And who would be surprised when the unfortunated petition signer is charged with spitting on the sidewalk, or any number of other harrasment charges that are available?

The real point is that this only needs to be done to a few people and publicized before everyone gets the message loud and clear - petitions which are dangerous to the Legislature are no longer allowed, on pain of the signers having their lives destroyed.  *This* is how Totalitarian governments the world over have maintained their control; you may think it is over the top to talk about brownshirts, but in actual historical fact, this is *Exactly* how the Brownshirts operated. 

This movement to open the signatures to the public is not some miner local dispute - this is a threat to very fabric of Democracy itself.  Fortunately, at least 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices appear to recognize that those are the stakes.

Posted by: wws at October 21, 2009 10:43 AM (T1boi)

29 23 The public right to know the names of the signatories on a public petition outweighs the risk that the signatories might be subjected to illegal behavior on the part of their political opponents.

Posted by: steve at October 21, 2009 10:39 AM (09ntO)


How does the public have a "Right to know" ? The public has a right to know that the law is being upheld, but they have no more right to know which individuals to retaliate against than they do how people voted.

Is not signing a petition in effect Voting for a particular position ?

Posted by: Diogenes at October 21, 2009 10:45 AM (EOnG1)

30

Is not signing a petition in effect Voting for a particular position ?

No. I signed the Petition when I was for it, but that was before I voted on it, when I was against it.

Posted by: John F. Kerry at October 21, 2009 10:48 AM (V9SYy)

31 The people who want the identities released to the public are doing so for the express purpose of intimidating them.  When the organizations simply organizing the petition drives receive so much flak, how can an attempt to get at the people supporting them be any different?


Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 10:51 AM (/OBdK)

32 Here in MA you are in serious jeopardy if you oppose the gay agenda, they will destroy you.  These are not nice people, they are merciless in their attacks on you and your children.  It is unfortunate that in this day and age, in this country, in certain states (MA being one of these)you really cannot exercise your freedom of speech.

Posted by: J at October 21, 2009 10:52 AM (T3/qP)

33

Diogenes

Obviously someone needs to know that they are real. And also, that obviously has to be the Governmental officials responsible for verifying that they are real.

The Founding Fathers did not trust the Government, nor do I.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2009 10:54 AM (OlN4e)

34

Yeah, publish the names and addresses for all petition signers. When one comes along that I don’t like I will send them all documents that force them to watch the Geico Pothole Ad.

 

Posted by: Vic at October 21, 2009 10:55 AM (CDUiN)

35

32 Here in MA you are in serious jeopardy if you oppose the gay agenda, they will destroy you.  These are not nice people, they are merciless in their attacks on you and your children.  It is unfortunate that in this day and age, in this country, in certain states (MA being one of these)you really cannot exercise your freedom of speech.

I don't fear the queer. I'm not "nice people" either. If they don't like me, they can come and get me.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2009 10:57 AM (OlN4e)

36 I tell my friends that I signed R-71 because I think gay marriage has more validity when voted in by the people.  It's likely going to pass, which I don't have a problem with.  When you tell someone this, it blows their tiny liberal minds, because it never occurs to them that allowing a public vote on a contentious issue could wind up in their favor.

Wonder why they think that.

The people trying to get the names of the signers are part of a group called "know thy neighbor."  Creepy, eh?

Posted by: JD at October 21, 2009 10:58 AM (3dh9d)

37 33

Diogenes

Obviously someone needs to know that they are real. And also, that obviously has to be the Governmental officials responsible for verifying that they are real.

The Founding Fathers did not trust the Government, nor do I.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2009 10:54 AM (OlN4e)


I don't trust them either, but at some point, someone has to decide the signatures are legit.

Even on petitions made public, who knows whether the signatures are valid or not ? The Government officials in charge of verifying them.

It can be hoped that public outcry can keep the system legitimate if officials should attempt to thwart the process.






Posted by: Diogenes at October 21, 2009 11:02 AM (EOnG1)

38

"The reason we have secret ballots is to prevent voter intimidation. How is this different again ?"

Because petitions are PUBLIC and voting is private. Can't believe someone even asks this question...

As for gays intimidating others, my response is exactly what the conservatives would say: there are already laws on the books to prosecute that.

PS - You would be intimidated by Striesand and Queer Eye fans?

Posted by: JEA at October 21, 2009 11:04 AM (H7yeS)

39

There you go people, if you believe names should be released you agree with JEA.

Posted by: Vic at October 21, 2009 11:08 AM (CDUiN)

40

"If they don't like me, they can come and get me."

Maddog, you forget the important part - if *they* have the support of the political structure, then they will be backed by the police.  You will not.  When they provoke a fight, you will be the one sent to jail, they will not.  You will be the one demoted in  your job, or denied work entirely, because you now have a criminal record.  You will be the one who is banned from all political participation  in the future, not them. 

And as I said before, they only need to do this a few times to a few people, not everyone.  The message quickly gets out.

This is how totalitarian control is established over a population, and this is how totalitarian control is maintained.  You either oppose it now, or the moment to oppose will pass before you even know what has happened. 

Posted by: wws at October 21, 2009 11:09 AM (T1boi)

41

wws

This is how totalitarian control is established over a population, and this is how totalitarian control is maintained.  You either oppose it now, or the moment to oppose will pass before you even know what has happened. 

Absolutely true! What did the Founding Fathers risk when they signed the Declaration of Independence?

If men will not take a stand for what is right, and risk the consequences, who will? People have the government they deserve.

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2009 11:16 AM (OlN4e)

42 Vic, even a stopped clock...

Posted by: maddogg at October 21, 2009 11:17 AM (OlN4e)

43

Jean,

It's a little confusing how these referenda work.  The petitioners wanted to get the legislative domestic partnership expansion on the ballot with the hopes that it would get knocked down in a public vote.  So they are opposed to the expansion.  The main group responsible in this case is Protect Marriage Washington.

But the way Washington law works is that the ballot question is whether to approve or deny the legislation.  So an "Approve" vote will uphold the domestic partnership expansion.  So supporters of the legislation are urging Washingtonians (?) to vote "Approve."

Posted by: IOC at October 21, 2009 11:18 AM (fKpiB)

44

A Modesto man was attacked while passing out Yes On Prop 8 signs . Jose Nunez, 37, who became a U.S. citizen two months ago, was outside St. Stanislaus Catholic Church when an unidentified man grab about 75 of the signs and ran. Nunez took chase, and when he caught up the man punched him the face.

I'm trying to figure out if the attacker was more a Streisand fan or a Queer Eye fan.  Probably a Streisand fan 'cause Queer Eye fans usually slap not punch.

Posted by: polynikes at October 21, 2009 11:19 AM (m2CN7)

45 Oops. Left over sockpuppet from ObamaFAIL at Copehagen. 43 is me.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 21, 2009 11:23 AM (fKpiB)

46 So long as we lived in a country subject to the rule of law, it was reasonable for petition signatures to be public. As wws notes above, however, we currently live in a thugocracy where the state tilts the scales away from individual liberties. Accordingly, I'd have to say that petition signatures should currently be protected.

Of course, this gives rise to other problems, as the state supposedly protecting the identities of petition-signers is the same entity supposedly evaluating the signatures for validity. And, of course, states are staffed with statists -- how well was Joe the Plumber's personal information protected?

Posted by: cthulhu at October 21, 2009 11:23 AM (u+gbs)

47 http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=173635

A group called WhoSigned.org says it will publicize the names of people signing petitions for Referendum 71, which seeks a public vote to overturn a new expansion of Washington's same-sex partnerships. WhoSigned.org says it's partnering with the gay rights group KnowThyNeighbor.org to put the names online.

In a live interview on KIRO FM's Dori Monson show on Monday, campaign director Brian Murphy said it is not their intention to harass those who signed the petitions. Murphy said they want to make the information available to the public which will "Allow people to have conversations with their neighbors, to be able to have the discussion, and talk about how does this particular petition affect my family?"

You know, they just want a neighborly chat before getting all up in your face.

Posted by: JJ at October 21, 2009 11:24 AM (PHd1S)

48

28 wws (especially), 32 j, 19/26 Diogenes: That's a good point. If you're trying to influence an election by adding to the ballot, the same principle should apply as influencing the election by voting in it. i.e., secret ballot rules.

When the State receives a signed petition there has to be a way to prove that the signatures aren't all from Mickey Mouse and Jive Turkey. Other groups have the right to know how the State proved or disproved that the signatures are real. However this does not necessarily mean that the State and his buddy, Saul Alinsky, have a right to know who all signed it.

It's like a password protection. The login screen has a right to know that your password is correct. It does not have a right to know what your password is.

This is done through a "hashing algorithm". When you enter your password for the first time, it is turned into a hash before it goes to the database. No-one can get your password then, not even you. But when you log in, the login screen hashes your password, and compares that hash to the hash on the database.

It should be a federal mandate to demand identity hashing on all petitions.

Some states might, like maddogg (and the blog post I did yesterday, which I'll have to change), decide on principle that petitions are public; those will also demand non-hashed declarations of identity, so that private citizens can know what you stand for.

But the base principle should be hashing.

Posted by: David Ross at October 21, 2009 11:28 AM (rtzHA)

49

Vic, even a stopped clock...

 

Not the same thing. If you wanted to compare JEA to a clock it would not be a stopped clock. It would be a clock that was set to be off by a large degree so that it was NEVER correct.

 

Posted by: Vic at October 21, 2009 11:31 AM (CDUiN)

50 36: That right there is the problem.  Liberals don't actually want a government for the people, by the people.  They want government for Me, by Me.  It's cultural narcissist disorder, after a fashion.

Posted by: The Ghost of Flannery O'Connor at October 21, 2009 11:48 AM (c+8UE)

51 15

Personal information should only be released to people responsible for verifying that the signatures are legal and no one else.

Posted by: Vic at October 21, 2009 10:32 AM (CDUiN) -

As I sit here and try to figure out how an idiot like me can be thinking of a reply to maddog's question @5 and then scroll down only to see that someone as smart as you has already written my reply for me.

Posted by: teej at October 21, 2009 11:54 AM (c459z)

52

RE: 43

Why the hell can't they just be clear and put 'gay marriage: yes or no' on the damn ballot? Sheesh. I wouldn't even know whether I was voting for or against gay marraige the way that's worded, and I'm a freakin' English major.

RE: 51

"Personal information should only be released to people responsible for verifying that the signatures are legal and no one else."

There'd be complaints on both sides that it was fraudulent if the names weren't made public by whichever side was opposed. You trust libs to be honest? Yep, they don't trust conservatives either.

Posted by: JEA at October 21, 2009 12:17 PM (H7yeS)

53 I live in Washington state, I also oppose R-71 (or approve, this is one of those weird resolutions that is aking us to approve an action of the legislature so I think the voting is opposite what it would normally be. In any case I support the expansion of domestic partnerships). I also oppose releasing the names of people who signed the petitions. Very early on the group suing for release made clear that the only reason they wanted them was so they could be published (and people subjected to harrasment although they deny that). Names on petitions may be public record here but they are routinely withheld, an example is the socialist candidates for office. When they have to petition to be on the ballot their supporters names are always withheld, as are donor names, so they will not be subjected to harrassment. Whu should supporters of R-71 be treated differently than socialists?

Posted by: jenn at October 21, 2009 12:27 PM (g/flt)

54 Gabe: "I've tucked a poll under the fold."

I bet you have!

Posted by: runninrebel at October 21, 2009 12:28 PM (i3PJU)

55 IYKWIMAITYD, NTTAWWT.

Posted by: runninrebel at October 21, 2009 12:29 PM (i3PJU)

56 @46 cthulu

So long as we lived in a country subject to the rule of law, it was reasonable for petition signatures to be public. As wws notes above, however, we currently live in a thugocracy where the state tilts the scales away from individual liberties. Accordingly, I'd have to say that petition signatures should currently be protected.

The only way we get out of this thugocracy is by going all-in. 

Posted by: MikeO at October 21, 2009 12:29 PM (WvolZ)

57 A petition signature is basically a vote to put something up to a vote. If we have secret ballots, why not secret petitions?

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at October 21, 2009 12:46 PM (g9neE)

58 Is it possible to be both for and against something at the same time? I don't like it but at the same time I understand the reasoning behind it after California.

Posted by: Bill R. at October 21, 2009 01:03 PM (EhlQq)

59 48: Hashing's a good idea.  I can understand the need for privacy: the signers may not be so much concerned about themselves personally as they are about protecting their families.

Interestingly enough, the local chapter of the ACLU would get behind this.  It's the national umbrella that's sacrificed genuine protection of civil liberties in lieu of pushing their socialist agenda and acquisition of publicity through stunts of PETA-grade stupidity.  All the real work of protecting civil liberties has been done by individual local chapters exclusively.

Posted by: The Ghost of Flannery O'Connor at October 21, 2009 01:13 PM (c+8UE)

60 If men will not take a stand for what is right, and risk the consequences, who will? People have the government they deserve.

Exactly! That's why we need to get rid of the secret ballot. Make people go up to a public board and cast their vote, and have it register for everyone to see.

This should be especially true in Unions. Right, maddog?

Posted by: Original Roy at October 21, 2009 01:30 PM (jV0wG)

61 Incidentally, the government I think I deserve will protect my privacy from those who seek to harass or attack me.

Posted by: Original Roy at October 21, 2009 01:34 PM (jV0wG)

62

"To the extent that signers want to avoid First Amendment activities like picketing by asserting their own First Amendment rights, the signers don't have a leg to stand on."

This is the important issue for me.  Frankly, when Prop 8 passed in CA I wanted to know everyone that supported that offensive act in order to make sure I in no way contributed to their well being.  That should be my right as a citizen.

Now, if I wanted to know it so that I could go and commit violence against them, then I would be a criminal and there are criminal laws to deal with that.

In a republic, laws are created by representatives accountable to the voters.  But when you farm out that duty to ballot initiatives, who do you hold accountable?  I'm not saying my side has to win every vote, but I want the option to picket and oppose those that voted against me.

Posted by: Scott at October 21, 2009 01:40 PM (oBuMg)

63 Before all the thuggish activity from the "gay community" after their Prop 8 loss and the creation of this creepy quasi-Stasi "KnowThyNeighbor.org" group, I don't think anyone was too concerned about whether their petition signatures were public or not.

But the fact that there's now an organized group whose stated reason for existence is to stalk the petition signers, coupled with the very recent demonstration in nearby California that the gay community responds to losing an initiative vote by assaulting, battering, harassing, and intimidating its perceived enemies, changes things.

Posted by: Ortho at October 21, 2009 01:47 PM (sPIAv)

64 I want the option to picket and oppose those that voted against me.

I'm surprised how many think that secret ballots are a bad thing.

Posted by: Original Roy at October 21, 2009 02:40 PM (ejHeB)

65 @64 Original Roy

I'm surprised at how many think that a ballot and a petition are the same thing.

Posted by: MikeO at October 21, 2009 03:08 PM (WvolZ)

66 @64

Replace "voted" with "worked" and that was the concept I was going after.  Poor choice of words on my part.


Posted by: Scott at October 21, 2009 03:40 PM (oBuMg)

67 This is why I don't sign petitions.  Either way, someone will get their grubby little hands on the information and use it to harass you.

Posted by: soulpile at October 21, 2009 04:34 PM (gH+Hj)

68 62

This is the important issue for me.  Frankly, when Prop 8 passed in CA I wanted to know everyone that supported that offensive act in order to make sure I in no way contributed to their well being.  That should be my right as a citizen.

Now, if I wanted to know it so that I could go and commit violence against them, then I would be a criminal and there are criminal laws to deal with that.

In a republic, laws are created by representatives accountable to the voters.  But when you farm out that duty to ballot initiatives, who do you hold accountable?  I'm not saying my side has to win every vote, but I want the option to picket and oppose those that voted against me.

Posted by: Scott at October 21, 2009 01:40 PM (oBuMg)

TRANSLATION: Scott's a fascist that wants to make sure that he has your correct name and home address so his less stable friends can do whatever the hell they want to your family and destroy your ability to earn a living . If you happen to get killed in the process, then that's just too bad, and the price to be paid for defying Scott's will.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at October 21, 2009 05:54 PM (H7Rlw)

69 Scott Frankly, when Prop 8 passed in CA I wanted to know everyone that supported that offensive act in order to make sure I in no way contributed to their well being. That should be my right as a citizen.

No it shouldn't. Seriously - you're talking like a thug.

I suppose you want the end to the secret ballot too. After all, isn't it your "right as a citizen" to know who votes for anti-gay candidates too?

Give it some thought, man.

Posted by: Zimriel at October 21, 2009 06:02 PM (mrKgX)

70 It's not a poor choice of words. It's the logical conclusion of your argument.

Don't feel too bad, Scott; yesterday I thought the same way you, maddogg, and the State of California did. But then I realised what the State would need to do to protect voters and petitioners. Basically it ends up with monarchy and/or a beefed-up judiciary (Guardian Council, anyone?) which enforces the law even if the government and, in local regions, the majority doesn't like it.

Posted by: Zimriel at October 21, 2009 06:09 PM (mrKgX)

71 Much easier just to demand that petitions be hashed and secret like the ballot, than to demand a police state, or mob rule.

Posted by: Zimriel at October 21, 2009 06:09 PM (mrKgX)

72 When the State receives a signed petition there has to be a way to prove that the signatures aren't all from Mickey Mouse and Jive Turkey

Damn straight!

Posted by: Doodad Pro at October 21, 2009 08:24 PM (rTGYp)

73

Age of Conan CD Key
Aion Online CD key
Champions Online CD Key
Call of Duty II CD Key
Company of Heroes CD Key
Counter - Strike CD key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
Diablo 2 CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
Fallout 3 CD Key
Grand Theft Auto IV CD Key
Guild Wars CD Key
Nexon Cash for MapleStory: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
Red Alert 3 CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
StarCraft CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
The Godfather II CD Key
The Sim 3 CD Key
Titan Quest CD Key
WarCraft3 CD key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
Warhammer Online CD key
World Of Warcraft CD Key
http://www.cdkeyexpress.com

Burberry scarf: http://www.scarves-store.com
silk scarf: http://www.scarves-store.com

Posted by: jason at October 21, 2009 11:31 PM (ZkesI)

74 1.  It should be clear to everyone now that 'minority rights activists' don't actually give a shit about minority rights, only additional power for themselves and their groups.  As the vast majority of these groups are lefties....

2.  Petitions are public declarations.  They should be published...BUT, after the election.  Let the government agency verify the accuracy of the signature (because of course the gov never does anything bad against citizens seeking to change gov behavior /snark) - but there has to be a measure of trust in the process and punishment when it is breached.

3.  Our system is so contentious at this point I assume that if I make any public proclamation on any topic, I am going to get crap from one side or the other.  No one of course thinks about sending me a thank you note for being willing to sign a petition and getting involved in the political process....

4.  If I sign a petition and someone shows up to complain to me about it.  They have a chance - done legally - to call me on it.  I don't have a problem defending it... or myself.


Posted by: Tracy Coyle at October 22, 2009 08:27 AM (gorkw)

75

Anti-shoes (sometimes called Antishoes) are a style of unisex sheepskin boots lined with wool on the inside and with a tanned outer surface. MBT M.Walk often have a synthetic sole, although this is not universal. Swissmasai have been considered a fashion trend since the early 2000s. The terms MBT Shoes, MBT Lami Brich have been used as generic terms for sheepskin boots in Australia since the 1970s, when they first appeared in advertising and other publications on mbt online .

Posted by: mbt shoes at October 22, 2009 10:25 AM (w6HSU)

76 High Replica Handbags | Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags | replica fashion Handbags| fendi handbags| designer handbags replica| replica Chanel Handbags| designer replica handbag| replica purses| Replica Louis Vuitton Luggage| Hermes Birkin Handbags| Replica Gucci handbags Louis Vuitton,LV Luggage,LV Wallets,LV Agendas,LV Belts,LV Shoes,LV Accessories,Gucci,Gucci Wallets,Gucci Shoes,Marc Jacobs handbags,Marni handbags,Miu Miu handbags,Mulberry handbags,Prada handbags,Thomaswylde handbags,TOD handbags,Bottega Veneta handbags,D&G handbags,Dior handbags,YSL handbags,Coach handbagsLouis Vuitton LV Luggage LV Wallet Chanel Gucci Alexander Wang Fendi Balenciaga Chloe Marc Jacobs Miu Miu Mulberry Jimmy Choo Hermes Loewe Coach Cartier Valentino Bottega Veneta Burberry Dior Prada Marni YSL Versace Dolce&Gabbana Goyard Givenchy Thomas Wylde Luggage Shoes Collection Belts Collection Bracelets Louis Vuitton ::  Gucci Handbags ::  Chanel Handbags ::  Hermes Birkin ::

Posted by: replica handbags at October 23, 2009 10:05 AM (o4b/d)

Posted by: replica handbags at October 23, 2009 11:41 AM (o4b/d)

78 UGG Classic Cardy Boot makes me different form the other girls. The UGG Bailey Button Boot is a good choice for female. If you want to be more attractive this winter,the UGG boots will make your dream come true.

Posted by: uggs boots on sale at October 23, 2009 10:30 PM (/BNGt)

79 UGG Classic Tall is one of our brand's heritage styles. The UGG Classic Tall features genuine twin-face sheepskin for refreshing comfort.UGG boot Sheepskin boots are the taller version of UGG Australia's signature luxury sheepskin boot.UGG Classic Tall is a classic article for autumn and winter seasons. It has become a new favorite for fashionable ladies.

Posted by: ugg classic tall at October 27, 2009 10:21 AM (64hga)

Posted by: fdsfds at October 27, 2009 12:49 PM (8kvkz)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 27, 2009 04:47 PM (pgfU2)

Posted by: australia ugg at October 27, 2009 06:48 PM (c6EK2)

83 We sell Ugg mens Tasmina Braid Sandal,UGG Classic Cardy,Ugg mens Tasmina Braid Sandal and so on.We are welcome and trusted by our customers from all around the world.http://www.llikeonline.com

Posted by: linxu at October 29, 2009 12:24 AM (CuuNb)

84 Our website htttp://www.widelybuy.com provide many kinds of UGG Boots.For example,the UGG Classic Tall,Ugg Classic Short,Ugg Ultra Short,Ugg Sundance and so on.In order to meet your demands as possible.We will give you the best service to satisfy your request.We also will give you the reasonable price on the basis of equality and mutual benefits.Free shipping fee and no tax 1 week to you door!

Posted by: xlzhengnan at October 30, 2009 12:31 AM (+SJA7)

Posted by: term papers at October 30, 2009 04:19 AM (1p1nP)

86 This all goes back to the inverted philosophy of "starve the beast".  Instead, it is "engorge the beast".  The only starving going on is if "the beast" is the private sector.

Posted by: classic cardy boots ugg at October 30, 2009 11:56 AM (xTjoi)

87 Hey... If I take the poll are you gonna publish my name?

Posted by: Stephen at November 01, 2009 09:00 PM (PqJEv)

Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 03, 2009 04:31 PM (LHCCE)

Posted by: asd at November 08, 2009 02:06 AM (ZGh8a)

90 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

Posted by: mbt shoes at November 08, 2009 10:36 AM (QhfLM)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 12, 2009 04:10 AM (IeIJx)

92 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing


business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at November 14, 2009 03:08 AM (APB+g)

93 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

Posted by: cheap at November 14, 2009 06:30 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 23, 2009 05:42 AM (bNNim)

95 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

Posted by: reviewups at November 27, 2009 04:29 AM (xUZwC)

Posted by: gfh at November 29, 2009 05:44 PM (jwOUD)

97 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what،¯s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

Posted by: reviewups at December 03, 2009 09:21 AM (OKj2x)

98

Everything dynamic and very positively!ugg classic cardy discount, free shipping!

Posted by: ugg classic cardy at December 04, 2009 11:41 AM (npwAH)

Posted by: uggboots at December 07, 2009 10:49 AM (Cooh2)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 07, 2009 11:15 PM (1dySH)

101 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

Posted by: ugg boots sale at December 10, 2009 04:01 PM (I3/dZ)

Posted by: Lacoste shoes at December 12, 2009 11:21 PM (/3s/N)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 17, 2009 08:28 PM (1dySH)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 20, 2009 05:12 AM (1dySH)

Posted by: aglik at January 01, 2010 11:42 AM (8/LVa)

Posted by: replica watches at January 05, 2010 07:51 AM (ndMAX)

Posted by: ugg shoes|timberland uk|ugg boots|87415555.com.cn at January 06, 2010 07:08 PM (qzq48)

108 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

Posted by: El temporal de fr¨ھo y nieve pone en alerta a once comunidades aut¨®nomas ugg boots|ugg uk|timberlan at January 09, 2010 04:41 AM (tWrEP)

Posted by: chi hair irons at January 17, 2010 04:51 PM (9oETl)

Posted by: air max shoes at January 28, 2010 05:21 AM (JOSIc)

111 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

Posted by: replica watches at February 04, 2010 04:32 AM (YOuVm)

112 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

Posted by: replica watches at February 04, 2010 06:12 AM (CPNio)

Posted by: airmax at February 04, 2010 04:43 PM (Eu9Vs)

Posted by: may at February 06, 2010 06:56 PM (Eu9Vs)

115 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.

Posted by: replica watches at February 07, 2010 12:09 PM (TUJDt)

116 Watches really Replica Watches are a great fashion replica item. This is because watch manufacturers such as Emporio Armani understand their customers wants and needs and rolex Watches know that rolex watches there is a big market for tag heuer Watches fashion tag heuer watches and designer movado watches in the UK. The number of people that demand these fashion watches has grown enormously over the past few years as people all want to have their own unique personality. Buying a watch can be a breitling watches long breitling Watches process. This is because there are so many watches to choose from that people cartier watches can spend a whole lot of time making their decision. One brand that is always popular is Emporio Armani. This is because Emporio Armani are one of the best fashion brands in the UK and they therefore offer customers some of the best fashion omega Watches available watches on omega the market. There are millions mens Watches of watches for a customer to choose when it comes to a watch. It's quite easy to make the right watch purchase decision. Or you just need to know what famous watch brands are and you may find what you like at once. Emporio Armani watches have been very popular for many mens Watches years.Women's watches Emporio Armani is a brand for style sense and mens Watches fashion which it shows in his range of fashion watches. No matter what watch brand you choose, it can be sure that the watch you are going to wear would show some of your personality.

Posted by: replica watches at February 09, 2010 01:20 PM (fa8ya)






Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.0897 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0112 seconds, 124 records returned.
Page size 151 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat