Ed cetera

Join the informed, opinionated journalists of The Times' editorial staff in lively discussions at our blog Ed Cetera.

October 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Referendum signers' names have to be public -- Duh!

Posted by Joni Balter

Three fairly boisterous cheers for U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle of Tacoma who ruled, sensibly, that people who signed Referendum 71 will have their names made public.

In a state where transparency is a supreme public value, and in a state that grows a lot of nutty citizen initiatives, this is a no-brainer.

Why should someone who doesn't want his or her name revealed be involved in public policy? What if lawmakers tried to do that?

The idea that an individual could sign a petition and then have his or her name kept secret is outrageous. If you sign a piece of paper supporting an initiative or referendum, go for it, but don't do something you are afraid or ashamed of.

The argument by backers of Referendum 71, who wanted to undo Washington's entirely reasonable domestic partnership law, was always specious. Someone might get mad at them. Really? Then deal with that. Call the cops.

But signing petitions in secret, when you don't have the courage of your beliefs to stand by that signature, is the epitome of lame.

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

How far does this go? Can your employer now not hire based on your initiative support? How could you ever prove otherwise? How long before this...  Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:42 AM by BobVB3. Jump to comment
When someone signs an initiative, they are agreeing that an issue should be put up for a public vote. Nothing more. Signatures need to be verified...  Posted on October 19, 2011 at 6:22 AM by willcasp. Jump to comment
jack - Commenting on a newspaper website doesn't put anything on a ballot. That is the answer to your question Dave.  Posted on October 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM by jack'sperson. Jump to comment