Wow.... things are looking bad for the gay activists and their fringe-left allies!
Earlier, the clowns who despise democracy were doing their best to intimidate people by threatening to publicize their names and addresses if they dared to exercise their right to request to vote on the "Everything but gay marriage" issues our leftist legislature rammed down our throats.
Like tens of thousands of others, I didn't give a rip WHO knows that I support the right of the people of this state to vote on this, or any other issue confronting us at any time... precisely like the Constitution of this state says we can.
That said, others may, in fact, be frightened by these scum. Others may be concerned for their safety or that of their families. I don't share that concern, because I'm pretty good with a .45.
That said, the foes of democracy took it in the chops AGAIN when a federal court judge ruled that the names be kept private for now, since those interested in attempting to engage in voter intimidation provided absolutely no compelling reason to release those names and addresses.
Judge shields signatures in gay-rights referendum A federal judge has continued to keep private the names and addresses of those who signed Referendum 71, saying they likely are protected under the First Amendment and that the state failed to prove a compelling public interest in their release.By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times staff reporter
A federal judge has continued to keep private the names and addresses of those who signed Referendum 71, saying they likely are protected under the First Amendment and that the state failed to prove a compelling public interest in their release.
Gee... It must really suck to be an enemy of democracy today...
And, by the way... like our esteemed, lying Cowardman who assures us he hasn't made up his mind how he's going to vote on Obamacare... *I* haven't made up MY mind how m*I'M* going to vote on R 71.
There... see how that works?
Posted by Hinton at September 10, 2009 10:40 PM | Email ThisIt's important to note that at issue here is the constitutionality of the state public records act. Corruption is very real in this state. If we weaken these laws so that religious conservatives can stay in the closet, there will be repercussions in other areas that are MUCH more important.
Posted by: AD on September 11, 2009 03:16 AM
I will make my point in a reasoned, calm fashion.
We have a lot of problems with corruption in politics. Often, public disclosure and FOIA requests are our only avenue for catching corrupt politicians in the act. Do you know what made THIS website so popular? It was Sharkansky's reporting on the 2004 election problems, many of which he pursued with public records requests. We shouldn't gut these laws without a good reason.
Signing a petition is not the same as voting and you should know that. As our Republican Attorney General, Rob McKenna, explains "In all states with initiative or referendum systems, the ballot measure represents the people substituting themselves for legislatures. We don’t conduct the legislative process in secret, and it doesn’t make sense to conduct this legislative process in secret either.”
Posted by: AD on September 13, 2009 10:56 AMFor you to want to require the names of the signers of any petition to the Government to be made public makes you an anti-Liberty, anti-American Marxist Fool. Needless to say, that makes you a Liberal...PERIOD!
That's why McKenna believes it's so important to protect the disclosure laws. These names have been public for decades and now, all of a sudden, disclosure means we live in a police state?
Maybe next we can keep donor names and amounts secret? Donors need to be protected, too. Right?
Posted by: AD on September 13, 2009 12:48 PMYour twisted Liberal mind can't grasp what the disclosure laws are all about even when, it has been explained to you more than once. So, it is futile to review again.
Donor names and amounts are governed by law as to the amounts and source. They go to supporting various politics in one form or another. Therefore, it is aligned in matters of support for paid public officials and their parties/support groups that have bearing on how the peoples will be served and the cost to the peoples thereof. Therefore, donor names and amounts are open to public disclosure. Get it? Naah...You're a Liberal.
From the Seattle Times: "A federal judge [Benjamin Settle] has continued to keep private the names and addresses of those who signed Referendum 71, saying they likely are protected under the First Amendment and that the state failed to prove a compelling public interest in their release. ... Indeed, Settle said that Protect Marriage is likely to succeed in its claim that the public-records act is unconstitutional as applied to the disclosure of referendum petitions."
Read how you describe donations. You say they are "governed by law" and "go to supporting various politics." How is that different from signatures? It's not the same as voting, as AG McKenna explains. Most states west of the Mississippi don't have referenda and initiatives because that's what the legislature is for. These mechanisms exist in our state because it gives an opportunity to the People to act AS the legislature. What if someone wanted to keep the votes and actions of our state reps secret? That is RIDICULOUS!
You think I'm a liberal.. fine. You're not a conservative, though. Conservatives support open government and the right of everyday people to know what is going on in our government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It's truly sad that so many are frightened of it!
Posted by: AD on September 13, 2009 02:27 PMI understand exactly what you are saying. I disagree. This is not an election with a private ballot. Citizens who sign a petition are saying "The legislature made a big mistake and I am going to act in their stead by enacting this law." It is regular citizens acting as legislators. This is a cherished right, of course. But it doesn't mean you can do it in secret!
If a bunch of Seattle liberals started an initiative against conservative Christians, I don't think you'd be so protective of their rights to privacy. I think this is just partisan for you and you have a hard time seeing the broader issue, which is open government and public records.
I support the initiative process. I just don't want it done in the dark, behind closed doors.
Posted by: AD on September 14, 2009 04:22 AMThe "Right to Anonymity" (just FYI, no such "right" exists, but please tell me if you can find it somewhere) does not apply to the legislative process. If it did, we would keep all voting records of senators and representatives secret.
Posted by: AD on September 14, 2009 09:08 AMThe Right to Anonymity is based in Common Law and has been held up by the Courts many times...IDIOT! Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. I think it has been proved that reality and facts will never dissuade you from clinging to your demented beliefs and positions. What a Joke you are. But then...You're a Liberal and you're a Waste of any further time spent. Take a Hike!
Seriously, buddy, it's politics. It's fun to argue about. It matters, of course. But it's all intellectual. Don't get too emotionally wrapped up in it.
Posted by: AD on September 15, 2009 03:42 PMArguing about politics is much more that just, showing off skills of debate and intellectual acuity. Most important, it is about Principles and what is Right. It's about bringing to the forefront what is best for Mankind and the Governing of Mankind. It's about defending Freedom from the predators who choose politics to advance their avarice. It is certainly more than just, an intellectual exercise.