Ruling hits close to home

Why do we see such a scramble by those opposed to Referendum 71 to raise more funds all of a sudden [“Judge declines to suspend rules on R-71 contributions,” NWWednesday, Oct. 28]?

Do we see court cases concerning education reform? Why is the education of our children not as important?

It is a cheap political move. The last-minute attempt to change the rules about campaign contributions by R-71 opponents was ridiculous.

And trying to conceal the names of the donors to protect them from harassment? When was the last time you saw a gay man beating up a heterosexual with a club? Gay bashing is a much more common occurrence than straight bashing.

This is just an attempt to cover up large contributions made by those trying to buy votes.

As a gay teenager, R-71 means so much more to me than a box to be checked on a ballot. R-71 represents hope.

— Annie Hale, Seattle

Stunned by hypocrisy in opposition

I am stunned by the hypocrisy of the reject R-71 campaign [“Anti-Ref. 71 group sues to raise limits on donations,” page one, Oct. 23]. They say domestic partnership is a weighty issue that should not be decided by courts or the Legislature.

It must be put to a vote of the people — the best determiner of law.

Then they go to court to prevent the signatures that put the measure on the ballot from becoming public as required by Washington’s Public Records Act — a law enacted by the voters.

They are also suing to overturn Washington’s law restricting campaign contributions — another law enacted by the voters — so they can accept large last-minute donations.

So, do they care about the will of the people? Only when it suits them.

Opponents of gay rights have called them special rights, and deplored the rulings of judges who make decisions they don’t like. Now they’re asking judges to overturn laws so they don’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

Many claim to hold the moral high ground, but their conveniently shifting arguments and tactics reveal a fundamental lack of integrity.

I encourage voters to think twice before doing the bidding of a morally bankrupt campaign.

— Janis Walworth, Bellingham

Equal rights and R-71 opponents

Opponents of Referendum 71 are not merely seeking to overturn equal rights for gay and lesbian families.

With a recent spate of lawsuits, they are now seeking special rights for their donors and their campaign — threatening to eviscerate Washington’s public-disclosure and campaign-finance laws.

Names of every citizen on any referendum or initiative petition are a matter of public record. This keeps our election process accountable to the people. But opponents of Referendum 71 are suing in an attempt to hide their names.

Names of every donor to every campaign are also a matter of public record. Washington citizens deserve to know who is funding the political process. But opponents of Referendum 71 are suing to keep their donors private.

No donor can give more than $5,000 immediately before an election. This prevents well-funded outsiders from influencing the political process. But opponents of Referendum 71 are suing to overturn this campaign-finance law.

While opponents of Referendum 71 seek to deny equal rights for gay and lesbian families, they also seek special rights for their campaign — in contravention of our state’s laws.

— Justin Hellier, Seattle

Court should continue to protect privacy

I support the U.S. Supreme Court order temporarily preventing disclosure of the names of individuals who signed petitions putting Referendum 71 on the ballot. This decision protects the fundamental values of free speech and voter privacy.

Following last year’s defeat of California’s proposed gay-marriage law, opponents of that law — notably the Mormon church — were subjected to vandalism, boycotts, threats and other acts of intimidation.

The release of the Referendum 71 signatures can only have two purposes, neither of them good. It would encourage retaliation against Referendum 71 opponents, and it would also discourage individuals from signing petitions concerning controversial legislation.

This is not a matter of open government. Signatories are acting as private citizens, not government employees, and public-disclosure laws should not apply. It is also not a valid argument to say that since some government employees have access to the signatures, privacy has already been compromised.

Whether by law or custom, confidentiality is already required in many fields, and access by a few does not imply access by everyone.

The Supreme Court’s order should be made permanent, protecting the right of privacy in matters where the dictates of conscience might be overwhelmed by fears of recrimination.

—Stephen Triesch, Shoreline