Doe v. Reed

2010-06-24

Headline: Court allows states to make referendum petition signer lists public, rejecting a broad First Amendment ban and letting Washington release names and addresses in most cases while narrower claims continue.

Holding: The Court held that public disclosure of signers’ names and addresses on referendum petitions does not generally violate the First Amendment, upholding Washington’s records law while allowing targeted as‑applied challenges to proceed.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to release referendum petition signers’ names and addresses publicly.
Leaves open narrower, case-by-case challenges for petitioners fearing harassment.
Strengthens state tools to check petition fraud and verify signatures.

Topics: petition disclosure, public records, initiative and referendum, privacy and association, election integrity

Summary

Background

The dispute began after Washington’s legislature passed a law expanding rights for state-registered domestic partners, including same-sex partners (SB 5688). A group called Protect Marriage Washington gathered petition signatures to force a public vote and submitted over 137,000 names and addresses to the secretary of state; about 120,000 valid signatures were needed to qualify. Third parties sought copies of the petition under Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA). Petition sponsors and some signers sued, claiming the PRA violated the First Amendment generally (Count I) and that disclosure of this particular petition would likely lead to threats and harassment (Count II).

Reasoning

The Court framed the question as whether disclosure of referendum petitions in general violates the First Amendment. It held such disclosure is subject to review under an “exacting” standard but that the State’s important interest in preserving election integrity — including detecting fraud, catching invalid or duplicate signatures, and promoting transparency — is substantially related to public disclosure of petition signers in general. The Court found petitioners’ evidence focused on the particular R–71 petition and the risk of reprisals from Internet posting, not on typical petitions, so a broad facial challenge failed. The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and left the narrower as‑applied Count II claim for the district court to consider.

Real world impact

As a general rule, states that treat submitted referendum or initiative petitions as public records can disclose the names and addresses of signers. At the same time, individuals and groups can still pursue focused, case‑by‑case challenges when specific evidence shows a reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals. The ruling preserves state tools to verify petition integrity while signaling that truly exceptional, targeted privacy claims may still obtain relief.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separate opinions stressing balancing and the availability of as‑applied relief; Justice Thomas dissented, arguing for stricter protection for petition signers.