No need to 'out' signers of petitions

In 1973, after a whopping 699,068 people signed petitions to overturn a pay raise state lawmakers had voted for themselves, the secretary of state faced a vexing decision.

A senator had demanded to see the names and addresses on the petitions from Thurston County — which happens to be the county where the state Capitol is located.

"I can only conclude that he wants to find out which teachers and state employees signed the petitions," Secretary of State Ludlow Kramer said at the time.

In other words: the state senator wanted revenge.

So Kramer refused to turn over the initiative sheets. His reasoning was that no good could come of it. The measure had already qualified for the ballot, so the identity of who signed was irrelevant.

"The release of these signatures (has) no legal value, but could have deep political ramifications to those signing," he said.

Sound familiar?

A lot has changed since '73. The notion of personal privacy seems as dated as disco. Politics has become even more of a blood sport. And so-called "citizen initiatives" have morphed into moneymaking business enterprises.

Yet Ludlow Kramer's common sense seems timeless.

The same type of privacy dispute is playing out in multiple courtrooms this fall. If you signed Tim Eyman's tax-limiting Initiative 1033 or the drive to repeal expanded domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians, should your name be kept secret? Or released so it can be posted on the Internet?

Even the judges can't agree. Two judges have said the names should remain secret. But last week a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals came down on the side of opening the petitions to the public.

I've heard all the constitutional arguments. Though my knee-jerk instincts are to be a) against Eyman and b) for open public records at all times, I keep coming back to the basic question they asked back in 1973. Which was: What is the point?

There is no point to knowing who signed these petitions. Other than to try to "out" them, as some gay-rights groups say they want to do to the 138,000 people who signed to put Referendum 71 up for a Nov. 3 vote.

I get the impulse here. Who are these people who believe you should be a second-class citizen if you're gay? Let's make them defend it, by name.

Yet we know who sponsored the petitions (and how they can't seem to stay married or pay their taxes themselves, but that's another story). We know who has donated money to try to keep gays and lesbians down. What matters now is the heart of Referendum 71 — fairness for all — not some backward-looking citizen witch hunt.

In fact, this fight to put the names and addresses of every petition signer on the Web is just playing into the anti-gay camp's hands. Making them seem like the aggrieved minority.

"The identity of the person who supports the referral of a referendum is irrelevant to the voter as the voting public must consider the content of the referendum," U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle wrote last month, sensibly (though I should add he is the judge who was overturned by the higher appeals court).

There are two weeks left until the election. Can we please start focusing on the content of the referendum — which is equality? That wins.

The story of Ludlow Kramer was dug up, and introduced into court, by none other than Tim Eyman. He's got his own agenda, to keep his initiative business going. His perpetual petition machine using paid signature gatherers funded mostly by one wealthy benefactor is a far cry in spirit from the '73 volunteer uprising that gathered those 699,000 names in only three weeks.

But the story reminded me that passions come and go. So do hucksters. What needs to last — what Kramer was trying to protect — is that people feel free to petition their own government.

What I'm saying is that, this time, Tim Eyman is right.

Danny Westneat's column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com.