Washington's tradition of open government wins in court

WASHINGTON'S Public Records Act received a vote of confidence from the U.S. Supreme Court, even though another legal challenge is expected. Justices saw referendum petition signers as part of a public process.

Sponsors of Referendum 71, regarding expanded rights and responsibilities of domestic partners, including same-sex partners, sued to block release of the names of those who signed petitions to put the state law before voters.

The court's position is not as single-minded as the 8-1 vote suggests. Six justices signed onto an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts; Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion signed by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg; Stevens wrote a concurring opinion signed by Justice Breyer; Justice Scalia penned his own concurring opinion, and Justice Thomas wrote the lone dissent.

Repeated themes stressed the significant flexibility of states to implement their own voting systems, the importance of preserving the integrity of the electoral process and the promotion of transparency and accountability in the electoral process.

More fundamentally, the justices said the plaintiff, Protect Marriage Washington, had not made the case its petition signers were any more subject to threats, harassment and reprisals than anyone signing petitions as potentially emotional as taxes and property rights.

The court left the door open to narrow challenges on First Amendment arguments, but the tone was more in the spirit of engaging creative arguments, which they generally dismissed.

The court looked at Washington and saw a voter-approved embrace of public access to public records, and a populist tradition ingrained in the political system. Voters even approved the disputed referendum.

A win for open, transparent government.