The editorial in the Everett Herald Tuesday spoke to why the Supreme Court should rule in favor of revealing the names of signers of Initiative and Referendum petitions. Their argument was that it is a “Public Disclosure” issue tied in some way to the Open Government Act of 1972.
I couldn’t disagree more. The Public Disclosure Commission was formed to create public oversight of election financing. The people have a right to know who is paying for campaigns.
The state constitution outlines the mechanics of the initiative process. The number of signatures required is determined by how many voters participated in the last general election where we voted for governor. The Secretary of State is then required to determine whether the signers of the petitions are indeed valid registered voters as outlined in the petition and that enough signatures were collected to meet the numerical threshold requirement.
Where I don’t feel threatened by the prospect of my name being known as a signer of petitions, others may. I have on numerous occasions signed petitions for initiatives that I knew I would vote against if they made it to the ballot. For me, signing the petition is an agreement that the issue should be placed on the ballot, not an endorsement of the content. I would hate to think that by signing a petition I was advertising a particular viewpoint on the issue. I would hate to think that my signature on a petition could be used as a weapon against me or my family.
I believe in the public process that allows us to vote on important issues. Getting those important issues on the ballot is tough enough already. The idea that signers of petitions could be exposed to public harassment in the name of disclosure is just wrong.
I would challenge anyone to offer evidence that the process is compromised in any way by maintaining the privacy of those individuals who signed to give voters a chance to decide.
Absent that evidence, the names on petitions are not relevant and should not be publicized.
I believe in Initiatives and Referendums because they give the public a tool to participate in the legislative process when in their judgment the elected legislative bodies have failed to do so.
The Herald editorial filled four columns with useless drivel. They even referenced the 2004 gubernatorial election; trying to suggest that because a lawsuit was filed challenging the vote count in that election, we should question the process of verifying the authenticity of petition signatures. The Secretary of State and county auditors across the state work hard to maintain voter registration records. The content is changing by the day. At a given point in time, the qualification to vote in a particular election is determined by existing records.
If the Herald wants to criticize the County Auditors for their failure to remove deceased voters or relocated voters from the roles, I won’t argue; but they are suggesting that because of that failure, the identities of petition signers should be made public so the rest of us can properly scrutinize the validity of the names.
Good government is founded upon a system of good processes. Public participation is one of those processes. The public’s business should be conducted in the light of day to insure that it is not corrupt in any way. Extensive effort has been made to accommodate public oversight and participation. I can find no reference to intent or text in the law that would suggest that public oversight in this instance is anything more than monitoring the process of verification.
Posted on April 27, 2010 at 8:12 pm in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Steve Dana Issues | RSS feed
|
Reply |
Trackback URL
No Loss for Words
Why NOT Disclosing Matters…
by Steve DanaThe editorial in the Everett Herald Tuesday spoke to why the Supreme Court should rule in favor of revealing the names of signers of Initiative and Referendum petitions. Their argument was that it is a “Public Disclosure” issue tied in some way to the Open Government Act of 1972.
I couldn’t disagree more. The Public Disclosure Commission was formed to create public oversight of election financing. The people have a right to know who is paying for campaigns.
The state constitution outlines the mechanics of the initiative process. The number of signatures required is determined by how many voters participated in the last general election where we voted for governor. The Secretary of State is then required to determine whether the signers of the petitions are indeed valid registered voters as outlined in the petition and that enough signatures were collected to meet the numerical threshold requirement.
Where I don’t feel threatened by the prospect of my name being known as a signer of petitions, others may. I have on numerous occasions signed petitions for initiatives that I knew I would vote against if they made it to the ballot. For me, signing the petition is an agreement that the issue should be placed on the ballot, not an endorsement of the content. I would hate to think that by signing a petition I was advertising a particular viewpoint on the issue. I would hate to think that my signature on a petition could be used as a weapon against me or my family.
I believe in the public process that allows us to vote on important issues. Getting those important issues on the ballot is tough enough already. The idea that signers of petitions could be exposed to public harassment in the name of disclosure is just wrong.
I would challenge anyone to offer evidence that the process is compromised in any way by maintaining the privacy of those individuals who signed to give voters a chance to decide.
Absent that evidence, the names on petitions are not relevant and should not be publicized.
I believe in Initiatives and Referendums because they give the public a tool to participate in the legislative process when in their judgment the elected legislative bodies have failed to do so.
The Herald editorial filled four columns with useless drivel. They even referenced the 2004 gubernatorial election; trying to suggest that because a lawsuit was filed challenging the vote count in that election, we should question the process of verifying the authenticity of petition signatures. The Secretary of State and county auditors across the state work hard to maintain voter registration records. The content is changing by the day. At a given point in time, the qualification to vote in a particular election is determined by existing records.
If the Herald wants to criticize the County Auditors for their failure to remove deceased voters or relocated voters from the roles, I won’t argue; but they are suggesting that because of that failure, the identities of petition signers should be made public so the rest of us can properly scrutinize the validity of the names.
Good government is founded upon a system of good processes. Public participation is one of those processes. The public’s business should be conducted in the light of day to insure that it is not corrupt in any way. Extensive effort has been made to accommodate public oversight and participation. I can find no reference to intent or text in the law that would suggest that public oversight in this instance is anything more than monitoring the process of verification.
Rate this:
Share this:
Related
Posted on April 27, 2010 at 8:12 pm in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Steve Dana Issues | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL