Referendum 71: Citizens have a right to know who is trying to change state law

THE Washington State Attorney General's Office and the Secretary of State's Office stand together behind the state's public-records law, firm in our belief that individuals who voluntarily — and publicly — sign petitions to change state law thrust themselves into a public debate and the scrutiny of the public.

Yet in his guest column, Steve Pidgeon, attorney for Protect Marriage, complains that the "state is simply on the wrong side of essential freedoms" when it interprets state law to require disclosure of the signed petitions ["Revealing referendum signatures will chill First Amendment speech," Opinion, Sept. 30]. This opinion piece boldly claims there is no constitutional right of the public to receive information about those who seek to place measures on the ballot.

Referendum 71, which collected enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot, asks voters whether to approve or reject a recently passed state law that would expand domestic-partnership rights. Protect Marriage Washington filed suit to block release of the names of those who signed petitions.

The argument against the public's "right to receive information" is not new. In fact, it was rejected 35 years ago by the Washington State Supreme Court. In the 1974 case of Fritz v. Gorton, a paid lobbyist challenged the constitutionality of Initiative 276, a new law enacted by the people through the initiative process.

I-276, approved by more than 72 percent of the voters to expand access to government and political information, included new reporting requirements for lobbying activities and the creation of the state's Public Disclosure Commission.

In the 1974 case, Fritz argued public disclosure violated his First Amendment right to petition government under the U.S. Constitution. The state Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the constitutionality of I-276. It stated there is no absolute right to privacy under the First Amendment to petition government, and that "the right of the electorate to know is no less fundamental than the right of privacy." In fact, the Fritz opinion cited no fewer than seven U.S. Supreme Court decisions supporting a fundamental constitutional right of the public to receive information.

Ironically, I-276 is again being challenged as unconstitutional in the Referendum 71 case. While the Fritz case challenged the campaign-finance disclosure requirements, I-276 also contained an unchallenged portion requiring government agencies to disclose their public records. In both the 1974 case and the more recent case involving release of R-71 petitions, plaintiffs argue that disclosure would have a "chilling effect" on First Amendment rights.

The outcome of the current challenge to our cherished public-disclosure law will be determined next Wednesday before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Precedent suggests that a public right to receive information will be affirmed. I-276 declares that "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created."

The right to receive information from government is fundamental to a free society. It protects citizens from potential government misconduct and gives them the freedom and authority to hold government accountable. The outcome of this case has grave implications that will impact citizens' rights far into the future.