CURIOUS how these things turn out. The sponsors of Referendum 71 in 2009 had no qualms with harsh judgments about the private lives of thousands of Washington families. Those same people who sought repeal of an expansion of the state's domestic-partnership law were quick to race to court when they felt their efforts might attract scrutiny.

This week a federal judge in Tacoma lifted an injunction on the release of the 137,500 signatures collected to put R-71 on the ballot. U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle basically said Protect Marriage Washington never made a serious case for harassment — real or imagined.

Protect Marriage Washington is 0-2, with a loss in federal court and at the polls. Washington voters endorsed changes in state law to enhance the rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples and some seniors.

At its basic level, the referendum and initiative process in Washington is a relief valve for citizens to draft or challenge a state law. Anyone signing a petition is operating as a citizen lawmaker.

No one is casting a ballot, they are trying to empower a legislative act — a process that appropriately invites the maximum amount of sunshine to illuminate the process.

"This is a victory for transparency and open disclosure in our state's referendum and initiative process," Secretary of State Sam Reed said in a statement. Voters want government operated in open, transparent and accountable ways, and when voters sign a petition they are trying to change state law, Reed noted.

The case had earlier worked its way through the U.S. Supreme Court, where all but one of the justices endorsed maximum disclosure. They left room for exceptions, which Settle would later review in Doe v. Reed, but the emphasis was on openness.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded a common theme that Settle quoted in his 34-page opinion. She said the courts should be deeply skeptical "of any assertion that the Constitution, which embraces political transparency, compels States to conceal the identity of persons who seek to participate in lawmaking through a state-created referendum process."

Settle could not find any compelling instances of harassment. Indeed, the originally anonymous John and Jane Does of the lawsuit, identified in his opinion, were active participants in the very public campaign to roll back the law.

The judge did not say "scram" or " beat it" in so many words, but he erased the judicial slate and said their effort was finished. Nonetheless, Protect Washington Marriage has appealed and filed an emergency request to halt release of signatures, which was suspended Friday until a hearing on Monday.