Should petitions be open?

[Zeener Diode]

http://www.union-bulletin.com/articles/2009/09/14/opinion/daily_editorial/090914editorialr71freenames.txt

Should names of those who sign petitions become public domain? Does freedom of speech also include a right to privacy, or full disclosure of those who are behind legislating that laws we have?

Congress has open voting records; do we need to see the names of those who petition that body?

[Uthrecht]

Well, considering that government records are public domain as far as I know (barring security concerns), I think that anyone who submits material to the government has no expectation of privacy. Heck, if they emailed it to their Congressman or Senator it'd already be available to pull just from that source.

[Zeener Diode]

Seems that certain activists want to publish the names of petitioners in order to publicly shame them, or harass them.

[Uthrecht]

Well, certain activists want to publish all kinds of records of government officials, private officials, whatever they can get their hands on. Doesn't mean we should limit availability of other documents that are currently available.

A further thought: we're talking about signing petitions on laws, not on the voting-in of representatives. I originally read this as people signing a petition to have a bill created, in which case I'm completely for it being publicly available. On a re-read, I'm thinking they might be talking about a bill already drawn up and this is like a ballot option. If it's a public voting measure.... I'm more torn. I understand the issues of coersion and all that, which is why the voting for representatives is private. But those representatives are accountable for their voting on laws.

[Zeener Diode]

Well, the ballot is supposed to be private. But petitions need not be so, and people who sign them are subject to scrutiny for the purpose of determining if fraud is there. The names are part of the public record. But at some point voters need to be protected from being exploited for their views.

Uthrecht: "On a re-read, I'm thinking they might be talking about a bill already drawn up and this is like a ballot option."

I'm not reading that into the page I linked. It's about petitions, not ballots.

[Uthrecht]

Okay. I wasn't sure how all that worked, given how they phrased it. Giving it a label of Referendum 71 made it sound like something that was already in progress, so I was a bit confused about where things were along the way.

If you are trying to generate a law, one of the starters/signers of it, then I think you should be on the hook for it. I don't see that as being a voter, that's being a creator of desired legality to a fair degree. You're helping to determine what's going to be on the ballot for voters, or the docket for the legislature, that sort of thing.

Aha! Here's a bit of wording I missed:
"When people sign a referendum or initiative petition, they are trying to change state law," Zylstra said. "We believe that changing state law should be open to public view."

The initiative petition. So they just give it a title of Referendum, but it's in the generation phase. And I basically agree with Zylstra on that.

[Zeener Diode]

That's Washington (State) term for their ballots: Referendums. (In Oregon they're called "Initiatives.")

I think if the petitions became public domain it would damped the initiative process. People would not want to sign a petition if they thought it might be used against them.

[BJMoose]

Whatever happened to having the courage of one's convictions?


Anyone who "speaks up" in any forum opens himself up to whatever reaction may come his way. Why should petitions be an exception?

[ulfhjorr]

I'm with the Moose. If I'm willing to ask for a change in the laws based on my views, then I'm more than willing to let it be known that I feel that way.

But for those who may not be:

Not only are petitions completely voluntary, but they are not required for the proper function of the government. Because of that second condition, I think they are different from actual votes cast. This difference, coupled with the fact that steps can be taken pre-vote to reduce the chance of fraud, makes me think that petitions are not deserving of the same level of secrecy as votes.

[Anacanapuna]

I guess on an ideal level, I'd want to know that people who sign petitions do so openly and publicly. When I was a cub reporter back in the 70s, a grizzled city editor told me (first day on the job, in fact), "Now lissen here, 'Puna, you're gettin' paid to find stuff people don't want found and put it on the front page of my newspaper. So don't you do anything you don't want to see on the front page of this paper. 'Cuz if you do, it will be, and then I'll fire your ass." I figure it's good advice for anybody -- don't ever do anything you don't want to see on the front page of the local newspaper, because sure as hell, it'll end up there if you do.

[Fenris]

I'm firmly in the other camp.

First, I don't think there currently is any right to privacy.
Second, I think there damned well should be. And it shouldn't just cover the right to a woman's choice for an abortion: it should be far more wide ranging.

That includes political donations (up to a point--I don't know what the dollar amount should be. Lemme pull the number $1000.00 outta my butt as a talking point), political speech, phone numbers, addresses, credit information, etc.

A "petition" to get a ballot measure passed is a basic part of democracy. That should (IMO) be covered by a right to privacy just as much as your right to a private vote. You have the right to petition your government without fear of reprisals...and as much as I loathe the trogs who pushed for...( < blank > ... the anti-gay thing in California--I'm totally blanking on it. Prop 8? Prop 81? Area 81? ;) ) there were public reprisals*. This is destructive to a democracy and since the only way to add a ballot measure is through this process, privacy must be protected.

*Generally mild ones like boycotts, but those are still reprisals.

[Zeener Diode]

As much as I support unrestricted marriages and abortion access, I don't think it's right for those who sign petitions opposing such freedoms to be subject to harassment by activists trying to change both their minds and the enacted law. There is a reason that California passed that anti-gay marriage law; pro-gay activists should be channeling their energies to reverse that piece of legislation by way of the initiative referendum process and not by hunting down names of the people who voted against them.

Now the donations issue is different, I feel. If you give money to a cause, your name should appear on a donor list, no matter how large or small an amount. If for no other reason than to provide a money trail for campaign donations. If I donate to a cause, it's something I believe in and I would be proud to stand for. But signing a petition is to support a cause that you intend to vote for, and ballots should never be made public.

[Uthrecht]

I'm not sure I see a difference there. If you donate money to a politician, you are assisting them become a representative of the people in a real way, whereupon they will work to draft bills and vote on them. If you sign your name to a petition, you are assisting it in becoming essentially a bill that will be voted upon. You are more directly pushing legislation than if you donated money to a politician.

[Zeener Diode]

In a sense there is no complete privacy for signing a petition: your name may need verification to determine your eligibility (as a registered voter) to support the petition's intent. But there should be protection from someone getting hold of your name and using it to intimidate and harass you.

[Uthrecht]

You mean, like the police?

Again, I see trying to push legislation as highly participatory. If you are going to get that involved, your name gets attached. Bearing in mind that there are all kinds of governmental officials, from US senators down to municipal officials, who probably get people coming around and giving them crap. And I expect that an ombudsman isn't getting paid a whole lot - heck, look at what some state senators make.

[Anacanapuna]

Fenris has a good point, and I guess I forgot to elaborate on the "ideal" part of my post: Ideally, people should sign petitions because they are conversant in the issue, have formed an intelligent opinion (yes, even people philosophically opposed to me disagree intelligently with me) and are respected for exercising the freedom to petition. Having said that, I understand that there are people who will find and punish petition signers for having exercised their right, simply because they don't have a constructive, intelligent response (or because they're wrong, thus stupid.) It's a shame that one needs the protection of privacy when signing a petition.

[Zeener Diode]

I think it's none of anybody's business what petitions I sign, or how I plan to vote. As long as the proper authorities verify my signature, there should be no reason for anyone else to look at that petition.

[Anacanapuna]

I'll gladly concede the point. I love openness, and I'll happily reveal the titles and texts of any petitions I've ever signed. But Zeener is right -- I shouldn't be compelled to do so. And neither should he.

[Martini Enfield]

I think it's none of anybody's business what petitions I sign, or how I plan to vote. As long as the proper authorities verify my signature, there should be no reason for anyone else to look at that petition.

I agree. As long as the signatures on the petition are verified to be from actual people and not "padding", then I don't think it should be public knowledge who supported a particular petition, with the exception of the person starting it.

Mass Media has changed the way people communicate. Even 50 years ago, if Mr Johnson The Prominent Citizen signed a petition supporting a plan to bulldoze a local park and build one of those newfangled "Shopping Malls", he was unlikely to find himself being mentioned on CNN in connection with this.

But nowadays, it's theoretically possible for the local newspaper to say "Prominent Local Citizen Mr Johnson has supported the Shopping Mall Proposal" and before you know it, Tibetan Monks and Amazonian Rainforest-dwellers know that a Mr Johnson of Pleasantville, USA thinks the local park would look nicer if it had a shopping mall keeping it company.

Admittedly, that's an intentionally hyperbolic case, but I think the point is valid- the way you vote is (and should be) secret, and someone's support of a petition, whilst not necessarily "secret", should not be available to all and sundry, either.

[Zeener Diode]

A local petition that failed to garner enough support has been restarted by a new group (http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/10/04/breaking-new-mayoral-recall-campaign-will-begin-monday/) in hopes of succeeding where the previous petition drive failed.

The person [Jason Wurster] behind the failed petition is reported to be handing over his list of signatures to the new group so they can contact the supporters about signing the new petition. Two people familiar with the new effort, speaking on background because they are not authorized to speak for the group, say Wurster won’t turn in the signatures he has gathered to the city elections office. Rather, Wurster will give the signatures to the new group so that it can ask those people to sign a second petition. Maybe I'm overreacting, but this is an example of using a signature to pursue further ends. I did not sign this petition, but if I had I would consider this to be a violation of my privacy. Maybe the others who signed will gladly lend their name to this new petition; I would rather have the option to think it over before being contacted (and possibly harassed if I appear indecisive).

[WednesdayAddams]

You mean, like the police?

Again, I see trying to push legislation as highly participatory. If you are going to get that involved, your name gets attached. Bearing in mind that there are all kinds of governmental officials, from US senators down to municipal officials, who probably get people coming around and giving them crap. And I expect that an ombudsman isn't getting paid a whole lot - heck, look at what some state senators make.
And this is the thing. We go on and on about how we should know where every cent of that money comes from....but we don't want it known when it comes from us? Transparency for the other guy?

[Ichigodaisuki]

Zeener Diode,

A very interesting question. It does point towards privacy concerns.
I like what what marissaw wrote"Transparency for the other guy?"

My short answer to your question is YES, publicize any names from these petitions.. I believe that because it is complicated. I believe that those people who sign petitions that become the legal impetus to get an Initiative or Referendum listed onto ballots, which then are capable of being voted into LAW, by the people, are participating in legislating, and subject to our scrutiny. Could 500 of those signatures all come from employees at XYZ Company, which is lobbying for this new law?

FWIW, I don't think that the Referendum and Initiative movement is a proper way of legislating. I am mostly of the opinion that it is bad. I believe that the Legislature of the State has the authority and responsibility to enact law. They also bear full accountability. In democratic republics and such, the Legislature is supposed to make the laws. I am not against giving the voice of the people more say in how their government is being run. The government is there to serve the people, after all. But I do not like this new way of doing business that people seem to be trying their hand at.
Example: one motivated group led by an unelected official in Washington State wants to lower automobile registrations, the price is very high.A hundred or more a year. Everyone hates the high price, so of course, he quickly gets 1,000(or some number) of signatures to put an Initiative onto the ballot for the voters. This registration fee is pretty much hated, so when it goes on the ballot, alot of people vote for repealing it and replacing with $30.00a year registration.
Now this guy is happy that he enacted a law to repeal an unfair fee.
Why is he allowed, as an unelected official, to basically work as a legislature? And what are the real, elected Legislators supposed to do, now that the budget is screwed up?

It isn't all cut and dried in my opinion. I vote that making names available is allowable as it is in the public interest.
But, I would rather see this type of legislating be revoked.

[Zeener Diode]

In regards to a civilian spear-heading a tax revolt of sorts, that's how the initiative referendum works. And ultimately it will fall to a civil courts advocate (or judge) to determine the constitutionality of the law.

I have no problem permitting a governing body to inspect my signature in order to determine the validity. My problem is using allowing private groups access to my signature in order to promote their agenda without my approval.

[Anacanapuna]

Yeah, I think this is a valid point. In the specific case you cite, if a petition effort fails and somebody wants to try again, I think it's fair to require them to start from scratch. I think if someone called me and said, "Mr. Puna, we know you signed the first petition that failed, and we'd like you to sign ours," I'd be a little put off by that. Because I think it's just a short step from that to "You signed a petition like ours, would you sign ours, too?"

No, I think Zeener has a good point here. Yes, ideally I always favor openness, and I'm not ashamed to publicize any petition I've signed. But that's just me. We should err on the side of privacy.

[Uthrecht]

Nope, I'm still for openness. It was my point before, and I'm reading this as Ichigodaisuki's also, that the people who create and sign the petition are effectively acting as a legislature. When they do that, they are acting in the capacity of government. This is no longer simple voting for things, this is actual driving of law. If you are acting in the capacity of government, the whole point of governmental transparency descends upon you.

[Ichigodaisuki]

Zeener Diode,
Well, as allowing that making the signatures public may have some unwelcome repercussions, I agree that is unfortunate for you.
Privacy is allowed in different cases.
I guess it may be posed as such that if a hospital in your city was publicly funded and offered abortions and free drug counseling(not supposing that they always go together), would you agree that the names of any patients should be made public? After all, the hospital is receiving monies from the local and state citizenry in support. And not everyone agrees about abortion, but we all pay the taxes and are forced to support it in this manner. And as a matter of public disclosure, shouldn't we know where our money is going?
If privacy can be built into the system as described above, then perhaps privacy can be built into the petition process.

Anacanpuna, your scenario where you get added to a mailing list is quite likely.

[Zeener Diode]

I don't think your hospital comparison is an apt metaphor. Hospitals, like churches, should provide service and comfort to those in need. Whatever the services are should remain confidential, between the giver and the recipient. If there is a questionable practice that skirts the law, then public exposure is necessary to promote the appearance of a fair and balanced system.

[Fish]

Washington State, because of its initiative and referendum laws in the constitution, has begun to breed a very particular kind of semi-political activist: the professional initiative writer. These are basically lobbyists for whatever anti-tax, anti-government, anti-regulation body is paying them top dollar. They craft poorly thought out laws and push them to all their cronies.

I do want the names on these things published, because I want there to be independent verification that these names are real. I want some scrutiny.

Why? Because we can't un-elect people like this in any other way. This professional initiative writer is making state law, and he has no training, no popular mandate, no ethical duty to the community, and swears no oath of office. We, the community, cannot police him AT ALL. As long as he gets these petitions filled, by whatever means he can, we have no way to shut him down. There is no oversight.

The initiative and referendum laws in the constitution are nice things but they were never designed to cope with the kind of mass media on this scale.

[Martini Enfield]

Are we all using the same definition of "Petition" here?

To me, a Petition is "We, the Undersigned, hereby call upon the Government to [Change The Law] in Regards to [Subject]", followed by lots of signatures.

This petition is then presented to one's local (or a sympathetic) MP, whereupon it is tabled in Parliament, and then the MP draws up a Private Member's Bill (in conjunction with the Legislative Drafting Office) which is then put before Parliament like any other Bill.

The Petitioners themselves have, at least initially, almost no say over what the proposed Bill itself will say, although there will probably be a Public Consultation period during which they can make suggestions about the sort of things they'd like to see in the Bill, as can any other interested member of the public.

What you guys are describing sounds like a private citizen actually drafting the legislation themselves, getting signatures, then going to the legislature and saying "100,000 people support this, therefore you must table this in Parliament and vote on it by next Thursday at the latest", which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[Zeener Diode]

...

What you guys are describing sounds like a private citizen actually drafting the legislation themselves, getting signatures, then going to the legislature and saying "100,000 people support this, therefore you must table this in Parliament and vote on it by next Thursday at the latest", which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

That's what I'm referring to in the OP. The initiative referendum process that allows citizens to choose what kind of laws they want enacted.

Washington State, because of its initiative and referendum laws in the constitution, has begun to breed a very particular kind of semi-political activist: the professional initiative writer. These are basically lobbyists for whatever anti-tax, anti-government, anti-regulation body is paying them top dollar. They craft poorly thought out laws and push them to all their cronies.

I do want the names on these things published, because I want there to be independent verification that these names are real. I want some scrutiny.

Why? Because we can't un-elect people like this in any other way. This professional initiative writer is making state law, and he has no training, no popular mandate, no ethical duty to the community, and swears no oath of office. We, the community, cannot police him AT ALL. As long as he gets these petitions filled, by whatever means he can, we have no way to shut him down. There is no oversight.

The initiative and referendum laws in the constitution are nice things but they were never designed to cope with the kind of mass media on this scale.

I'm not against inspection of names on a petition for verification. I'm against publishing the names of private citizens for the purpose of activist groups to use for their own agendas. An example would be a petition to ban late-term abortions: a pro-choice group might seize the petition and seek out those who signed in order to persuade them to change their mind. Or an initiative to ban handguns within city limits could fall into the hands of the NRA and the signees could be subjected to harassment by pro-gun groups.

[Martini Enfield]

That's what I'm referring to in the OP. The initiative referendum process that allows citizens to choose what kind of laws they want enacted.

OK, so nothing at all like a "Petition" in this part of the world.

I'm not against inspection of names on a petition for verification. I'm against publishing the names of private citizens for the purpose of activist groups to use for their own agendas. An example would be a petition to ban late-term abortions: a pro-choice group might seize the petition and seek out those who signed in order to persuade them to change their mind. Or an initiative to ban handguns within city limits could fall into the hands of the NRA and the signees could be subjected to harassment by pro-gun groups.

This I agree with (the non-publishing of signatory's details, for these exact reasons).

The whole "Letting random members of the public draft legislation and force Parliament to vote on it" thing is another matter entirely, though, and not one I can say I really support.

[Zeener Diode]

...
The whole "Letting random members of the public draft legislation and force Parliament to vote on it" thing is another matter entirely, though, and not one I can say I really support.

:hijack: At the risk of hijacking my OP: Why not permit citizens of a free nation to petition their government for change?

Maybe I'm looking at your situation through my country's eyes, but if the laws sought by the populace are unworkable then your leaders can adjust them to fit your needs. Provided they aren't hairbrained crackpot suggestions.

[Martini Enfield]

:hijack: At the risk of hijacking my OP: Why not permit citizens of a free nation to petition their government for change?

Maybe I'm looking at your situation through my country's eyes, but if the laws sought by the populace are unworkable then your leaders can adjust them to fit your needs. Provided they aren't hairbrained crackpot suggestions.

I'm all in favour of citizens petitioning their Government for change. What I'm not OK with is random people drafting legislation and forcing the Government to vote on that, rather than our system, where lots of people signing a petition say to the Government "We want you to change the Law to achieve this end. Once you've agreed to do it, let us know and you can get input from everybody, not just the people who signed the petition."

[Ichigodaisuki]

#2:hijack:In other news today, you cannot petition the Lord with prayer.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDJtJwJrv7Q)

-link to the Doors

[Uthrecht]

Well Zeener, Colbert has weighed in (http://www.hulu.com/watch/104807/the-colbert-report-the-word-dont-ask-dont-tell#s-p1-sr-i1), and he's in your corner.

[Zeener Diode]

Yay Colbert!

I think. :dubious:

[Zeener Diode]

So gay activists in Washington State are seeking the names on the petition collected by the anti-gay activists. Again, I ask why? The answer that seems most likely is they want to publicly "out" those who signed as being "anti-gay."

First, let me be clear: I would not now, nor in the future, sign such a petition. I will, however, use this as an example.

The pro-gay activists have no business obtaining the names on that petition. The only body with authority to see those names is the State Elections Commission, and only for the purpose of determining the validity of the signatures.

[Fish]

And Zeener, what if the State Elections Commission is corrupt? Who has the power to verify that the state is doing its job?

[Zeener Diode]

And what if the body that investigates the Commission is corrupt?

If there is fraud involved in the petition process, the entire petition should be negated and thrown out. Again, only proper government officials should have the right to valid (or investigate) the names on the petition. If it turns out the names are linked to the fraud, or another related incident, then that's different. But law-abiding citizens who sign a petition with good intent should not be made scapegoats for activists.

[Uthrecht]

Well, I again say that if it's a petition to have something changed in state or federal government somewhere, yes, these are private citizens and I'm fine with it staying out of public notice.

But if this is a ballot initiative by another name, where you have one person draft it, a bunch of people sign it, then it goes on to the ballot to be voted into law... then the people who craft it and push it forward are acting as legislators. We do not let legislators keep their vote secret, we do not keep secret who drew up a bill and presented it for voting in the legislature, and neither should we keep secret the people who craft ballot initiatives a secret. If they do not want to be a part of it, they can instead petition their legislators to craft a bill.

I don't like having one method of creating law that has public scrutiny through every step of the process, and another that requires you to keep your big nose out of it because there are private citizens involved.

[Fish]

I don't like having one method of creating law that has public scrutiny through every step of the process, and another that requires you to keep your big nose out of it because there are private citizens involved.
Well said.
But law-abiding citizens who sign a petition with good intent should not be made scapegoats for activists.
There are already laws on the books about harassment, vandalism, and stalking. Enforce them, if such scapegoating occurs.

By making the petitions secret you're essentially making it illegal to have the means to break a law. It's like saying "because guns can be used to murder, all guns everywhere should be illegal and kept in the hands of the government." If murder happens, using a weapon, prosecute the murderer. If harassment happens using public documents, prosecute the harasser.

[Zeener Diode]

I'm not following your arguments. Whether a petition is used to make changes in existing laws or to enact a new one should not make a difference. A petition represents a voice of the people who fall under its governance. If a percentage of said population seeks change they can legally petition the government to make the change. The government evaluates the petition for validity (verifying signatures and weighing against legal precedents), determines the feasibility of the measure to pass or fail, and decides whether to put the petition up for vote in a general or special election. It is up to the majority of the population to decide whether to vote for or against. The names on the petition should have no bearing (once validity is established) on the outcome of the vote in the election; they only represent a percentage of the population who wish to make the change.

[Uthrecht]

Oh, in that case I think legislators in committee who vote to bring a bill to the floor should be allowed to vote in secret. They only represent the percentage of the committee who wish to make the change.

My point is that if you are trying to get your legislator or legislature to change laws for you, I don't have a problem with your name being kept out of it. If there is a method to take the legislature out of the process and have the law drafted and sponsored by people outside of it, they have now become the legislature. They are the law-drafting body. They now bear the same responsibility and public review, in my opinion.

[Zeener Diode]

I think we're confusing "legislators." When I think of legislators I think of elected officials of the Legislative Branch of government. In which case, as publicly-elected they have an obligation of being transparent in their actions. How they vote should be a matter of public record, as well as who contributes to their campaigns, where the money comes from, and who lobbies them.

I don't know how the system you decribe works (bypassing the elected legislators). If such a body of private citizens were able to enact laws to govern, I would want to know who they were and how they came to hold such power.

[Uthrecht]

Okay, let me explain how the system I describe works. Take your Referendum 71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Referendum_71_%282009%29). Being a referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum), it is a way for the citizenry to bypass the legislature and push a desired law directly to the public for approval.

In this case, it's not to create a new law, but to remove a law that has gone through the legislature and been signed. It's done the whole nine yards. So either it would have to be ruled unconstitutional by the judicial branch, or the legislature would have to draft up a new law to remove it. But not so here. Now, a group of folks can whip up a referendum, get some signatures, and can do a complete end-run around a branch of government. Maybe two.