Current kerflufle on whether ballot petitioners' names should be public

[barking_iguana]

The dilemma and facts of the case are outlined well, as always, by Adam Bonin at Daily Kos. Here's my take:

Signing a petition is an INHERENTLY public act.

And always has been and so should always remain. It is the act of standing on your own two feet (as opposed to bowing down) and saying politely but forthrightly to those in power that you think things ought to be done this way. It is not, and ought not, be any more private than putting a lawn sign for a candidate in your yard.

In order to protect citizens from undue pressure, all citizens (except those who've been legally disenfranchised) may vote without revealing their choices. That's to prevent political machines from requiring the votes of everyone who is in any way dependent on those machines, lest the citizens be punished financially. It's also because democracy depends on a high turnout rate in order to gauge the collective will of the citizenry and

But such anonymity is and should remain an exception in the realm of political participation. Writing, for some, is another exception, but the writer chooses to pay some cost in credibility in order to maintain that anonymity. Petitions, which are legal documents addressed to the government asking for some action to be taken, should not be the province of those who would sacrifice credibility for privacy. Instead, signing a petition should itself be an act of empowerment, of standing up and looking power in the eye, not of hiding one's face in shame.

Comments

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

Being a public act doesn’t entail name disclosure, unless there really was a federalism advocate named ‘Publius’, and (total screwball) Michael Scheuer changed his name to that from ‘Anonymous’.

[avram]

Did the Federalist Papers authors sign "Publius" to a petition?

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

As I said, some, writer sacrifice some credibility for anonymity. But the Federalist Papers were not an official act. They were an effort by three men to persuade other men, while hedging their bets. A petition does not entail hedging.

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

After more thought, I think you are restating the question that is to be decided, and presenting that as your case, or, more hopefully, as a way of phrasing an opinion in the matter.

I have no position in this. From my point of view it is simply a matter of preference what a state wants to require, and there is no simple rule.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

I suppose you're right. But see below.

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

I guess I should restate. I think petitioners’ names should be public unless there is a special factor (as there is for the secret ballot, witness protection, etc.), but it’s my preference for openness.

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

In general signing a petition is a public act, but in
this particular case, where by statute (as in CA) the entire point is to demonstrate sufficient numerical percentage support, and not to identify individuals, I see a gray area.

Seems like a state should have a clear rule as to whether
the list of signers is or is not to be made publicly available and the signers of the petition should be so
informed.

I wouldn't have a problem either way as long as it's clear.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

I guess you're right. But I have a particular, and I believe well-founded, animus to the government keeping of information that is ostensibly public, but which requires large investment in time or money for the public to actually obtain. And since the petitions are, and probably must be, open to inspection by opponents of the proposition for verification of eligibility, I don't see a practical way for the names of the petitioners not to fall into that class of information reserved for those who can pay.

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't have to be open to opponents for verification.

If you don't trust the SoS (reasonable), a set of judges or some other respected independent body could be by law made to render judgment instead of an elected official.

It may not be trivial, but it doesn't seem that hard either to make the process both private and still have integrity.