The information for this story comes from CBN News and Washington Post articles that were posted on Friday.

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that people who sign referendum petitions should not expect to have their names kept secret.  This sounds like a really good idea–open government, transparency, etc., but there are some problems.

CBN News reports what recently happened in California with Proposition 8:

“The group known as Protect Marriage Washington organized the petition drive in an effort to give the public a chance to vote on repealing the state’s domestic partnership law.

“Gay rights activists then asked the state for the petitioners names. The request left some feeling uneasy in light of what happened in California after the Proposition 8 campaign.

“The Golden State’s gay rights activists targeted churches and individuals who supported overturning gay marriage. Vandalism and job threats were common. Some even faced death threats.”

If transparency in a specific instance results in danger for ordinary citizens, is it something we want?

The Washington Post reports:

“”There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance,” Scalia wrote in a separate concurrence. “Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

“Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. He said the state’s decision to disclose the names on all petitions is unconstitutional “because there will always be a less restrictive means by which Washington can vindicate its stated interest in preserving the integrity of its referendum process.””

I guess I am just on the minority side of this.  Until the safety of petition signers can be guaranteed (which it never can), I want signatures to be validated by the Attorney General of the state involved and not made public.