I would suggest that we take your idea a step further and do away with voter initiatives. This would insure that there is a proper distance between a voter and the law, and also protect our status at a republic. All legislation could then be funneled, privately, through elected representatives.

An interesting side note, there is no Federal constitutional right to a secret ballot, and the secret (or Australian ballot) did not become the norm in the US until between 1888 and 1891.

First, I don’t agree with Quo that this is “scary” — or if this is scary then the right wing is the seventh level of hell by analogy.

That said, I think I agree that the signatures should be kept private. I’m not making a case about how the law is, but how it should be. One of the detriments of us living in a republic rather than a democracy is that we don’t get to vote on every issue — if we did, according to the polls DADT would be gone by now.

But there has to be an up side to that too. It means that there should be a reciprocal distance between me as a voter (or signer — frankly I fail to see a material distinction between a voter and a signer, even in light of your comment above David. That’s not meant to be argumentative, just that I read your argument and disagree.) and the law itself. This distance both forbids me to be able to pass a law myself, and also entitles me to a level of anonymity for weighing in to place something before my delegate.

So overall, I don’t think signatures of this nature should be published (though that certainly doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to be verified by a third party for validity).

You might just as well argue that it should be compulsory for people to reveal who they voted for. It’s a lousy idea.—Quo

Umm, no, false analogy.

When you seek to enact (or repeal) a law by petitioning for plebiscite, you are not the same kind of actor as a voter but are instead functioning like a representative to propose legislation. A vote cast in such a referendum is of course, and should remain, secret.

You might just as well argue that it should be compulsory for people to reveal who they voted for. It’s a lousy idea.

In essence, when you sign such a petition, you and the rest of the signatories are representing a position on a measure you wish to see enacted into law. As remarked above, it is essential that signatories be validated as eligible “representatives” of that position to be considered by the people of the state and with that necessarily comes disclosure.

This is analogous to someone running for office, where much of the details of that someone’s past become a matter of public record.

If one thinks that their position on a matter to be taken up for a vote by registered voters is potentially embarrassing to them, they should consider not signing on to represent that position, and instead vote for representatives that will represent their interests and make laws that best suit the citizens of the state where they live.

In short, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

As I understand it, the failure rate of approximately 12% for I-1033 was a record low for WA state. The 18% failure rate is the “typical” outcome, i.e., that number is not just a misleading numerical average derived from averaging a lot of 1% failure rates and a lot of 37% failure rates. In fact, it has never gone lower than 12% and it has occasionally gone into the 20-something percent range.

So assuming that I am correct that R71 has a 12.4% margin of error (and not 14% as the SoS has been saying), then R71 would have to match or beat the record low set by I-1033. But then, they do have Yahweh on their side, so you never know . . .

I’m sure you know that reaporting of signatories has taken place in several states. Perhaps you could support your claim by posting real examples of harassment of others who have signed a petition.

And don’t drag up old Prop 8 donor boycotts or other slights, real or imagined. We’re talking signatories.

Surely, surely, if you are willing to claim that Washingtonians are about to be harassed, then you have a good basis on which to make that claim.

It should be perfectly obvious that the main reason why gay activists would these names to be revealed is so that they can harrass people they disagree with. Their behavior is sinister and downright scary.

Except that it ISN’T.

Since Quo loves NARTH so much (but also loves coming here to BTB, a blog overrun with gays, gay articles, and gay advertisements) maybe he could cure his queerness once and for all by undergoing the therapies supported by NARTH in their most recent publication. I’ll even send him some salve to soothe the burns he’ll have on his repeatedly electro-shocked member.

Dan, I’m also looking forward to seeing that. But I’m not holding out for it, either.