Remember the soapboxes?
I disagree with the argument for making petition signatures secret in “Support signature privacy” [Bruce Ramsey column, Opinion, April 28]. Far more citizens would be affected by any referendum than sign it. The people affected deserve better than the equivalent of a stink bomb being lobbed into a public square from an undisclosed location, which is what appears to be happening more frequently.
Anonymity destroys public discourse, by definition. Look no further than the comments posted anonymously —or virtually so —on Seattle Times stories or columns. When people stood on soapboxes, there was a real person literally standing up for his or her point of view, not hiding behind an invisible cloak with an electronically disguised voice.
Laws have real impacts on real people. When changes to them are proposed, we deserve no less than a public discussion of them, starting with who wants them and why.
A common-sense definition of privacy is that you have a right to do what you want so long as it does not bother anyone else. Proposing to change laws that would affect other people is a public act, not a private one. It is as simple as that.
— Christian Saether, Seattle
Privacy protects people from harassment and intimidation
On one hand, state Attorney General Rob McKenna presents a compelling case for openness in government and points out that there is no current law protecting the petition signers’ identities. But as I see it, the current debate is not really about transparency in government — that is a side issue. The central nugget here is safety from harassment. That is why there was enough energy to get the U.S. Supreme Court to consider it.
The Bopp legal team, on behalf of Protect Marriage Washington, makes a compelling case for keeping petition signers signatures confidential. As we see in the current controversy, activists for gays and lesbians seek to advance their political agenda by the threat of harassment and intimidation.
If the Supreme Court decides that name and address information cannot be protected, the unfortunate response would be a public reluctance to sign any petition. My concern is that in the future, worthy issues, such as voter-approved R-71, might never come before the voters for consideration.
I believe petition signatures ought to fall under the same protection as voter ballot data and be sealed. The Legislature can and should exempt petition and initiative signatures from the public record.
— Paul Heins, Redmond