Say so long to initiatives as we've known them. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-to-1 decision Thursday that it's more important that people have full access to the names and addresses of petition signers than it is to protect those signers from intimidation and harassment.

The harassment is real, as political activists around the country have threatened – and even followed through on threats – to spread widely the names and addresses of people who have signed onto controversial ballot measures. Then their adversaries can contact them about their political ideology. Talk about an awkward and unwelcome moment on your porch.

Oregon Public Broadcasting reported that Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown welcomed the Supreme Court's decision, saying all citizens suffer when governments operate in secret. (Even though that's not really what having privacy for petition signers does. Voters operate "in secret" every election, after all.)

Brown is also not worried groups will routinely put the names of people who sign petitions online, saying, “Certainly there is that potential. It has not happened so far in Oregon. But I was really clear, when we discussed this issue during the last session. That if there is any harassment, we will pass legislation to prohibit that."

Let’s hope so. As Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter of the court majority opinion, said, publishing names chills citizen participation in the referendum process.

When people vote, how they voted is kept private. If it wasn’t, can you imagine how voter turnout would plummet? A lot of people like to keep their political opinions to themselves.

Because petitions represent ideas, it would offer consistency to the system to keep the names and addresses of those supporting a petition a private matter, too. Once the voter is verified by the state, the name and address of a voter should remain off limits to political activists of any stripe who are on a mission to silence political thought.

Now that the court has sided with signatures going viral, it will become harder than ever before to get people to sign onto a ballot measure. Which is, of course, fine by a lot of folks, not to mention the hope of many political activists who don’t want to see certain ballot measures come to fruition. (The ballot measure that spawned this Supreme Court battle was an anti-gay rights measure in Washington state that voters there rightly rejected.)

For those of us who still see ballot measures as an opportunity to act when our Legislatures won't, get ready to mourn the demise of a tool designed expressly for the people.



Read the ruling here.



