Supreme Court Decision

[fabrisse]

When I was in college, either five years ago -- according to John of Canterbury's reckoning -- or when the dinosaurs roamed, I refused to sign petitions. My parents paid for me to go to school, with no student loans or request to pay them back, and it seemed disrespectful to me to sign my name to a document which I knew they would disapprove of. The military looked at the family more closely back then, too.

I have always been aware that signing a petition meant I was making a public statement of my beliefs. So I was not shocked that the Supremes went 8 - 1 on the Doe versus Reed case about disclosure of petition signatories for ballot initiatives; they upheld the existing law that all of these were public. It's still possible to seek an exemption if it can be proved those signing face something more than simple harrassment.

Imagine my surprise at the number of people posting comments at the LATimes and Slate that this is equivalent to eliminating the secret ballot. Apparently, we are now on the road to becoming North Korea by the Supreme Court's decision to let this stand.

My point, which I made in the comments at both sites, is that the ballot is secret, but voter registration is not. I have to prove I am Fabrisse to get a ballot. If I live in a state without mail-in options, I must go to the polling place in order to vote. These are public acts, public declarations that I uphold my duties as a citizen in order to have my rights as a citizen.

Am I viewing this the wrong way? I don't want to have to learn Korean.

Comments

[tpau]

hm... i think i am with you on this one. a petition is a public declaration of support.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

I know you're more on the conservative end of the spectrum, just as I'm more on the liberal, but I've noticed in past debates that we're both squarely on the side of the rule of law and accountability. *G*

My biggest shock was that Thomas was the holdout. I expected it to be unanimous if the current law were upheld.

[tpau]

i find that the SCOTUS tends to always be a surprise to me, they never quite do what i expect, close but not quite :)

i believe in law, justice and personal accountability. very very strongly.

i have found btw, that when one talks of concepts i and my fairly liberal friends tend to agree. but when we get to specifics we do not. i think it is often an issue of seeing the same issue/facts and drawing a different conclusion. i believe that comes from having differing backgrounds and personal experiences in life. (rather then say stupidity which is what it is often attributed to)

that and i am a fairly moderate conservative about some things. downright almost liberal even sometimes :P but i think that is because i think i want government out of all aspects of my life, from my bedroom to my wallet :D

[daylyn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree with you. I haven't read the decision, but it seems to me that if you sign a petition you public declare your support for whatever the petition stands for. Which is why I've always been aware of what I was signing (good advice in any circumstances, btw).

Thomas as the dissenter? Really? (and he actually voted differently from Scalia? Really?) Another SCOTUS oddity.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

Once you have read it, let me know if I've misinterpreted.

Yeah, I thought Thomas was joined at the hip to Scalia.

[innerslytherin]

I agree with you.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

Glad to hear it. *G*

[siderea]

Well, I've always disagreed with your stance about being "respectful" to your parents by not exercising your political conscience, but I agree that the whole point of petitions (as the term is usually meant) is a public endorsement of the petition statement.

That said, I don't see it necessarily as a matter of justice -- we could have secret petitions or open petitions, either way, just so long as everyone knows what the rules are, and society can work OK. I think. I'm open to arguments either way.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

I spoke my mind. I voted my conscience. And I never looked back once I was out of college. So we can continue to disagree about the past. *G*

If we're talking, as the ruling was, about petitions to change laws, then I don't think just knowing the rules is sufficient. There needs to be accountability. I worry, I hope needlessly, about ending up with Star Chambers and Councils of Twelve. It's easy to do things in the dark that you wouldn't say or do in the light. Making people who want the laws changed do so in the light is, I hope, a way of a) keeping frivolities off ballots (I hated voting in California. The ballots were pages long in Los Angeles) and b) preventing prejudices from becoming law.

[siderea]

I spoke my mind. I voted my conscience.

So why was signing a petition different? Because they might find out?

I worry, I hope needlessly, about ending up with Star Chambers and Councils of Twelve. It's easy to do things in the dark that you wouldn't say or do in the light. Making people who want the laws changed do so in the light is, I hope, a way of a) keeping frivolities off ballots (I hated voting in California. The ballots were pages long in Los Angeles) and b) preventing prejudices from becoming law.

I totally agree (including about CA. Oy.) But is not the opposite problem also true? Consider the case of people wanting to advocate for increased workplace safety regulations, while living in a company town? Could someone, back in the day, who lived in Flint, MI, safely sign a petition regarding a law that GM would have opposed?

Computers put an interesting twist on this. Something that I don't think has happened, but is now technologically feasible, is that a utility company could get a digital list of everyone who signed a petition opposing something they want, and find out which of those people are the company's customers, and either threaten them or reprise against them. That is, I assume, egregiously illegal, but, man, I worked in that regulatory agency, and illegal aint stopped them yet.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

I spoke my mind. I voted my conscience.

So why was signing a petition different? Because they might find out?

Because the military might find out. These days "the fitness of the family" is no longer reviewed as part of an officer's promotion process. It still was when I was in college. My actions could have had consequences for my father and the rest of my family, not just myself. By the time Dad didn't make general, I was already out of college.

Your two scenarii are more than a little frightening. Technically -- these days, not back in the day -- the man who lived in Flint would be protected by EEO laws if he worked for GM. I recognize that it wouldn't help someone who owned a business in that town, even today, were she to sign something which got her dry cleaners' boycotted.

The second scenario might explain why my internet is slower than molasses. Comcast found out I signed the petition against the NBC merger.

[riverfox.livejournal.com]

Equivalent to eliminating the secret ballot, like a vote? That's stupid. What are they, flunk-outs from political science? Petitions are public documents that are nothing short of an "opinion poll" sent to a member of Congress or some other organization. Unless someone's testifying in a legal setting and under a gag order, petitions can't be used as a privacy issue.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

Over at Slate one of the columnists pointed out that not every state permits referenda, so the decision has more limited scope than we might think, too.