The Herald of Everett, Washington
HeraldNet on Facebook HeraldNet on Twitter HeraldNet RSS feeds HeraldNet Pinterest HeraldNet Google Plus HeraldNet Youtube
HeraldNet Newsletters  Newsletters: Sign up | Manage  Green editions icon Green editions

Calendar


HeraldNet Headlines
HeraldNet Newsletter Delivered to your inbox each week.
Published: Sunday, October 28, 2012, 12:01 a.m.
In our view / Public Records Act


Preserving transparency

Transparency in politics, like commitment in marriage, doesn't include an exceptions' clause. (Beware those who argue otherwise.) Accountability and disclosure are a public trust, and that extends to workaday questions like access to petitions for referenda and initiatives.
In 1972 Washington voters enshrined the principle of open government and accountability when they overwhelmingly passed Initiative 276. (In the halcyon days before initiative profiteers and paid signature gatherers.) The Public Records Act, like the Public Disclosure Act, is a touchstone of open government and citizen bird-dogging. It's a civic covenant that throws light on the public square, just as it triggers migraines for Washington's trying-to-stay-honest bureaucrats.
The public-access question was cast into relief last Tuesday when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the state's practice of releasing referendum and initiative petitions. The case centered on Referendum 71, the "everything but marriage" measure that Washington voters passed in 2009. R-71 made whole the Legislature's law on domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians as well as older heterosexual couples. Protect Marriage Washington, the petition organizers, aimed to keep the signers confidential, arguing that disclosing the documents abrogated "anonymous free-speech rights." For months, the R-71 litigation put the kibosh on releasing signatures as the case navigated the appeals process.
Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, representing Secretary of State Sam Reed, managed an impressive 8-1 ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, asserting that petitions are public documents which fall under the rubric of the Public Records Act. McKenna and Reed had common sense and the Public Records Act on their side. Initiatives and referenda are legislative tools. They are not secret ballots.
The Public Records Act question was rekindled after opponents filed what's known as an "as applied" challenge. As Appeals Judge A. Wallace Tashima noted in Tuesday's opinion, the challenge is moot because the documents were released some time ago.
"I am happy that disclosure of petitions has been without incident, and the initiative and referendum process is alive and well, with no apparently 'chilling' of the process we hold dear," Sam Reed said. "I am glad we are having a civil debate this year over same-sex marriage and other difficult issues. We can disagree agreeably."
Open government and the First Amendment are sacrosanct, but rights impose responsibilities. Leaders at Protect Marriage Washington feared that R-71 petition signers would be harassed by pro-partnership activists. That has occurred in a handful of cases, we know, including here in Snohomish County. Bullies haranguing petition signers they presuppose are anti-gay? It's not only counterproductive, but a strike on civic life.
While constitutional freedoms can't staunch the lesser angels, disclosure and public access have a tonic effect. Nothing is more true or consistent with Northwest values than open, transparent government.

Share your comments: Log in using your HeraldNet account or your Facebook, Twitter or Disqus profile. Comments that violate the rules are subject to removal. Please see our terms of use. Please note that you must verify your email address for your comments to appear.

You are logged in using your HeraldNet ID. Click here to update your profile. | Log out.

Our new comment system is not supported in IE 7. Please upgrade your browser here.

comments powered by Disqus
digital subscription promo

Subscribe now

Unlimited digital access starting at 99 cents, or included with any print subscription.

loading...

Herald Editorial Board

Jon Bauer, Opinion Editor: jbauer@heraldnet.com

Carol MacPherson, Editorial Writer: cmacpherson@heraldnet.com

Neal Pattison, Executive Editor: npattison@heraldnet.com

Josh O'Connor, Publisher: joconnor@heraldnet.com

Have your say

Feel strongly about something? Share it with the community by writing a letter to the editor. Send letters by e-mail to letters@heraldnet.com, by fax to 425-339-3458 or mail to The Herald - Letters, P.O. Box 930, Everett, WA 98206. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We'll only publish your name and hometown.) We reserve the right to edit letters, but if you keep yours to 250 words or less, we won’t ask you to shorten it. If your letter is published, please wait 30 days before submitting another. Have a question about letters? Contact Carol MacPherson at cmacpherson@heraldnet.com or 425-339-3472.

HeraldNet highlights

Wolf population growing
Wolf population growing: Chief concern about more wolves: Livestock attacks
Richard Sherman 2.0
Richard Sherman 2.0: Seahawks' star cornerback is equally effective with less bravado
Playing with all they have
Playing with all they have: Highland Christian girls compete, inspire with just 5 players
$800K in scholarships, so far
$800K in scholarships, so far: Monroe High's Chloe Cook expects she’ll still need a job
SnoCoSocial