Doe v. Reed

561 U.S. 186 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Washington State allows its citizens to challenge state laws by referendum. About four percent of Washington voters must sign a petition to place such a referendum on the ballot. The petition must include the names and addresses of the signers, so the government can verify that only lawful signatures are counted. The PRA authorizes private parties to obtain copies of government documents, and the State construes the PRA to cover submitted referendum petitions. This issue started with a state law extending certain benefits to same-sex couples, and a corresponding referendum petition to put that law to a popular vote. The intervenors invoked the PRA to obtain copies of the petition, with the names and addresses of the signers. Ps, certain petition signers, and the petition sponsor objected, arguing that such public disclosure would violate their rights under the First Amendment. Protect Marriage Washington submitted to Reed (D), secretary of state a petition containing over 137,000 signatures. D then began the verification and canvassing process, as required by Washington law, to ensure that only legal signatures were counted. D determined that the petition contained a sufficient number of valid signatures, and the referendum (R-71) appeared on the November 2009 ballot. The voters approved the state law by a margin of 53% to 47%. D then received requests for copies of the R-71 petition from an individual and four entities, including Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG) and Washington Families Standing Together (WFST), two of the respondents here. Two entities, WhoSigned.org and KnowThyNeighbor.org, issued a joint press release stating their intention to post the names of the R-71 petition signers online, in a searchable format. Ps filed a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin D from publicly releasing any documents that would reveal the names and contact information of the R-71 petition signers. P claimed the PRA is unconstitutional as applied to referendum petitions. Ps claimed there is a reasonable probability that the signatories of the Referendum 71 petition will be subjected to threats, harassment, and reprisals. The District Court held that Ps were likely to succeed on the merits of Count I and granted them a preliminary injunction on that count, enjoining the release of the information on the petition. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. P contends that the PRA “violates the First Amendment as applied to referendum petitions.” P asserts that the PRA “is unconstitutional as applied to the Referendum 71 petition.” The District Court decision and the Court of Appeals decision were based on the first count. Neither court addressed the second.