[PAX] Should the names of petition signers be public?

[sassafras]

It doesn't really change my perspective. I would stand up for same sex marriage regardless of how favorable the environment was towards homosexuality and I would not be afraid to put my name on it where anyone could see it. If that resulted in consequences for me then I could learn to live with them, but it just seems so cowardly to me to hide behind a veal of anonymity if you really believe in what you are pushing.

Oh I 100% agree with you, but if your goal is to create total, social reform, you're still going to need the anonymous voice of those 'cowards' to back you if you want to make any movement significant.

It always come down to small scale versus big picture thinking.

 

[Satya]

Oh I 100% agree with you, but if your goal is to create total, social reform, you're still going to need the anonymous voice of those 'cowards' to back you if you want to make any movement significant.

It always come down to small scale versus big picture thinking.

There was nothing small scale about the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King had no room for cowards.

"A man who hasn't found something he is willing to die for is not fit to live."
-Martin Luther King

 

[sassafras]

There was nothing small scale about the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King had no room for cowards.

"A man who hasn't found something he is willing to die for is not fit to live."
-Martin Luther King

Yes, Martin Luther King was an amazing human being and an inspiration to all. Unfortunately, there is a reason why he continues to stand out and why his accomplishments have yet to be eclipsed by anyone.

Having ideals and perhaps even preaching about those ideals is vastly different from putting them to action. The amount of people who would be willing to do so are a handful in comparison to the thousands who would prefer to make as little waves as possible.

Ideals are all well and good, but they have to contend with some pretty shitty realities. If we can take a few steps forward while keeping the everyman/coward appeased, why they heck would you not want to?

Unfortunately, those sentiments work both for movements that people are for, and the movements that people are against.

 

[Satya]

What are you talking about? The reason the civil rights movement worked wasn't because people sat at home and signed petitions behind a veil of anonymity. They got out on the street and marched. That sat in on restaurants. They boycotted. They protested. They took a stand. Martin Luther King was a good leader, but it was the people who followed him and made a public stand that brought about change.

 

[sassafras]

What are you talking about? The reason the civil rights movement worked wasn't because people sat at home and signed petitions behind a veil of anonymity. They got out on the street and marched. That sat in on restaurants. They boycotted. They protested. They took a stand. Martin Luther King was a good leader, but it was the people who followed him and made a public stand that brought about change.

*headdesk*

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly in my earlier post.

Not every issue requires a radical social movement that is equivalent to the storming of the Bastille. If a public release of information for petitions was indeed passed, this would apply to all issues. A potential employer might be able to look up where you stand on environmental or political policies that he or she supports and let that information directly or indirectly sway his or her opinion in the hiring process.

People can feel strongly about a lot of issues, but not so strongly that they're going to put their neck on the line for every one of them. If there's a poll, they should be able to put in their two cents on a subject without having to think about the repercussions of that opinion.

 

[Satya]

*headdesk*

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly in my earlier post.

Not every issue requires a radical social movement that is equivalent to the storming of the Bastille. If a public release of information for petitions was indeed passed, this would apply to all issues. A potential employer might be able to look up where you stand on environmental or political policies that he or she supports and let that information directly or indirectly sway his or her opinion in the hiring process.

But the current law in Washington is that the names on the petitions for all voter referendums are open to the public. This isn't something that is being passed now, it was passed years ago and the conservative groups simply want to bypass it in the case of the domestic partnership referendum.

 

[sassafras]

But the current law in Washington is that the names on the petitions for all voter referendums are open to the public. This isn't something that is being passed now, it was passed years ago and the conservative groups simply want to bypass it in the case of the domestic partnership referendum.

See that I didn't know. Did that same, publicaly released information extend to other, similarly controversial issues?

 

[Satya]

To my knowledge no. Not once since 1972.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411343_supco20.html

Supreme Court blocks release of R-71 signatures

Issue may not be resolved until next summer

By CHRIS GRYGIEL
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
The United States Supreme Court on Monday blocked the release of names of people who signed petitions seeking to overturn Washington's new "everything but marriage" same-sex domestic partner law.
The High Court will now consider whether to hear the merits of the case. The action by the justices, on an eight to one vote with Justice John Paul Stevens the lone 'no' vote, means the Referendum 71 petitions most likely won't be released before the Nov. 3 election.
"Our request would not likely be resolved until next year, possibly June, 2010. This is very good news," Gary Randall of the Faith and Freedom Network, which asked for the stay, said in an e-mail to supporters Tuesday afternoon.
David Ammons, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, said if the court decides not to hear the appeal from Project Marriage Washington, the ban will "terminate automatically" and a lower court ruling releasing the signatures will stand.
Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna support release of initiative and referendum petitions under terms of the Public Records Act that state voters approved overwhelmingly in 1972. Reed describes the petitions as the voter's way to take part in a public process of citizen legislating, and not like the private act of casting a ballot.

 

[sassafras]

To my knowledge no. Not once since 1972.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411343_supco20.html

Cool, thanks. I'll be doing some reading. To my knowledge, Ottawa never passed anything like this, so this will be an intriguing read.

 

[bamf]

I'll guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. In this particular situation, I think it is unwarranted. Knowing full well that petition signatures were public domain, and still choosing to sign does not mean you can suddenly decide you want to hide your name once you realize there could be repercussions.

Yeah, I guess you're right. We'll just have to accept our different opinions.

I do however feel much the way you do. I think people should stand up for their ideas and if they believe in them, do so publicly. The only difference I see between us is if a petition should be public or not (although I personally have no qualms against my name being publicly displayed on the petitions I've signed)

 

[Xander]

If you remove anonymity from voting and signing petitions then what's to stop people pressuring the vote?

If I wanted to vote that all women should be chucked out of the army then if I had to declare that I was voting that way then what's to stop a bunch of squaddies turning up to "persuade" me to not sign?

 

[Satya]

If you remove anonymity from voting and signing petitions then what's to stop people pressuring the vote?

If I wanted to vote that all women should be chucked out of the army then if I had to declare that I was voting that way then what's to stop a bunch of squaddies turning up to "persuade" me to not sign?

1. This has nothing to do with voting, only signing petitions.
2. The law that had existed since the 1970s stated that the signatures would be open to the public.
3. If you can't publicly declare and stand by your position, then maybe you are doing something you shouldn't be doing.

 

[Xander]

Shouldn't this be the same with political voting though? Why keep one secret and the other announced to the world? It just doesn't seem... right. To me.

 

[Satya]

Shouldn't this be the same with political voting though? Why keep one secret and the other announced to the world? It just doesn't seem... right. To me.

The idea was system transparency. The Washington situatoin illustrated it perfectly. There were thousands of fake signatures turned into the state office. Once the referendum is on the ballot, then every vote that is cast for or against it is anonymous.

My question, why is it right that the conservatives to change the law only now? They had 3 decades they could have changed the law before they took the domestic partnership legislation to the ballot. Only now are they concerned about anonymity since somebody was promising to take the names and make them accessible on the internet.

 

[Xander]

The idea was system transparency. The Washington situatoin illustrated it perfectly. There were thousands of fake signatures turned into the state office. Once the referendum is on the ballot, then every vote that is cast for or against it is anonymous.

Just to counter, the elections are anonymous but they manage to weed out false votes don't they? Perhaps with a similar system for petitions you wouldn't need to declare who signed up for what.

My question, why is it right that the conservatives to change the law only now? They had 3 decades they could have changed the law before they took the domestic partnership legislation to the ballot. Only now are they concerned about anonymity since somebody was promising to take the names and make them accessible on the internet.

That's one thing about politics though isn't it, if you look close enough they're all just doing what they're doing because they want to/ they believe it's the right things to do/ it benefits them. They are after all only human.

 

[Satya]

Just to counter, the elections are anonymous but they manage to weed out false votes don't they? Perhaps with a similar system for petitions you wouldn't need to declare who signed up for what.

That's one thing about politics though isn't it, if you look close enough they're all just doing what they're doing because they want to/ they believe it's the right things to do/ it benefits them. They are after all only human.

If it is the "right" thing, why cant they do it publicly? Why does it have to be behind a veal of anonymity? It seems to me that if you are ashamed of your political position, to the point that you fear being associated with it, then you might want to reconsider it.

 

[INTJMom]

Thread is PAX, but differing opinions are welcomed.

In Washington and Maine, referendums were pushed through to overturn gay legislation. In the case of Washington, it was R-71, which sought to overturn the "everything but marriage" domestic partnership legislation. In Maine it was R1, which sought to overturn the same sex marriage legislation. In Washington, the referendum failed, and in Maine, the referendum passed.

However, another controversy was going on during the referendum debates. For a referendum to be created, a petition has to be created and signed by a number of citizens within a state, usually a fixed percentage of those who turned out to vote in the last governor election. In Washington these names are, by law, already a matter of public record.

In Washington, a gay blogger promised to take the names of those who signed the R-71 petition and make them available on the internet so that people could boycott or protest against businesses or organizations which signed on with and thus made possible the anti-domestic partnership referendum. Conservative groups took this threat seriously enough to ask the courts to step in and protect them from the potential "harassment." It went back and forth in the courts and eventually ended up stalled in the Supreme Court.

This isn't limited to just petitions. In Maine, the conservative organization the National Organization for Marriage violated campaign finance laws in that state by refusing to release the names of its donors and went so far as to sue the state so it wouldn't have to release them. NOM argues that it does not want its donors to be harassed. Currently, the organization is under investigation in Maine, and is also under investigation in California for allegedly being a front for the Church of Latter Day Saints.

So the question is whether or not the names of petition signers should be made public. If you sign on to a voter referendum which could take rights away from a group of people, should you be able to hide behind a veil of anonymity without any repercussions? Does allowing names to be made public open the way to individuals or businesses being intimidated, bullied, or harassed? Is that justification to have names hidden?

I see the other side of it...

Why should I become a target of a hate crime for my political stance on a certain issue?
Why should I be coerced into silence for fear of me or my loved ones being the victim of hateful retribution?
Or even being hounded and debated to death?
It sounds like the Ku Klux Klan all over again.


I live in Maine.

 

[Satya]

Why should I become a target of a hate crime for my political stance on a certain issue?

You could have a crime perpetrated against you for the color of your skin, the color of clothes you wear, or simply where you choose to shop. Why is there anymore threat of having a crime perpetrated against you for your political stance than for any of those reasons?

Why should I be coerced into silence for fear of me or my loved ones being the victim of hateful retribution?

How are your loved ones at anymore threat?

See, if you want to make this argument, then as an NT, you probably realize you must provide evidence that the potential for being a victim of a crime for having supported a certain political issue is substantially higher than for any other reason.

What you seem to be indicating here is there is a substantial threat to being a supporter of traditional marriage. Where are the statistics that demonstrate that people who support traditional marriage have substantially more crimes perpetrated against them?

Or even being hounded and debated to death?
It sounds like the Ku Klux Klan all over again.

See above.

I live in Maine.

My sympathies.

 

[Xander]

I think the evidence of why there should be anonymity on such things is in Africa. If you're known as a voter for "the other side" you're hunted down and killed... that way the side that's in power always wins.

Without anonymity a democracy risks becoming a popular dictatorship.

 

[Skoffin]

On the one hand I agree that if you believe in something you should be willing to stand by it, but on the other it wouldn't surprise me if groups would use the knowledge of who votes for what to target those people and find ways to 'persuade' them from signing unfavourable petitions. I'd prefer it if people were simply open with their true opinions, however the general populace can and will shun those they decide don't fit their generally accepted mold.
Blast, i think I am going to have to be a fence sitter for the time being. :sad: