Doe v. Reed
The Court ruled that Washington State could generally release the names and addresses of people who signed petitions to put a law up for a public vote, rejecting a broad challenge to the state's public records law.
The decision means petition signatures usually stay public, though the Court left open the door for individual signers to prove later that their own petition, given its subject matter, would expose them to real threats or harassment if disclosed.
“Petition signing remains expressive even when it has legal effect in the electoral process.”
The Court's holding that signing a petition is protected speech even though it also has legal consequences.
How it got here: A federal trial court blocked release of the petition; the Ninth Circuit reversed that injunction as to the broad claim, and the signers asked the Supreme Court to step in.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Washington voters who wanted to challenge a new law extending rights to same-sex domestic partners gathered over 137,000 signatures for a ballot referendum. Once the petition was submitted, several groups sought copies of it under the state's public records law, including two groups that planned to post the signers' names and addresses online in a searchable format. Petition organizers and signers sued to block release, fearing harassment.
The question before the Court
Does releasing the names and addresses of people who signed a ballot petition violate their free speech rights?
Why it matters
People who sign ballot petitions across the country can generally expect their names and addresses to become public records, which state officials say helps catch fraud and mistakes. Signers worried about harassment over hot-button issues still have a path to seek protection, but they must prove a real threat exists for their specific petition, not just point to public disclosure in general.
What changes now
The broad challenge to Washington's public records law is rejected, so referendum petitions generally remain subject to disclosure. The case returns to the district court, which must still decide the narrower, fact-specific claim that releasing this particular petition on same-sex partnership rights would subject these signers to actual threats or harassment. That claim was not decided by this ruling.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether releasing this specific petition - which involved a hot-button topic - would itself violate the signers' rights. That narrower, fact-specific claim (Count II) remains pending in the lower courts and could still succeed even though the broad challenge failed.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Breyer
Justice Breyer wrote a brief concurrence explaining that he views the case as requiring the Court to balance competing First Amendment interests, and that both the majority and Justice Stevens' opinion strike that balance correctly. He joined both opinions.
Concurrence — Justice Alito
Justice Alito agreed that the broad challenge should fail but argued the signers have a strong case for winning a narrower, as-applied challenge specific to this petition. He emphasized that courts should grant such individualized exemptions quickly and without demanding heavy evidence, pointing to harassment faced by supporters of California's Proposition 8 as a parallel.
Concurrence — Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor stressed that referenda and initiatives are optional state-created processes, so states have wide latitude to require disclosure as a condition of using them. She viewed the burden on speech from disclosure as minimal since petition signing is inherently a public act, and said future as-applied challengers would face a heavy burden.
Concurrence in part — Justice Stevens
Justice Stevens argued this was an easy case because the disclosure rule is neutral and only indirectly burdens expression, and Washington's antifraud interest easily justifies it. He agreed the door should stay open for as-applied claims but thought success there would be rare, since burdens on speech from disclosure are speculative and indirect.
Concurrence — Justice Scalia
“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”Scalia's argument that a long tradition of public voting and legislating undercuts any right to sign petitions anonymously.
Justice Scalia agreed the challenge should fail but for a different reason: he doubted signing a petition with legal effect counts as protected speech at all, and argued that a long history of public legislating and voting in America shows there is no constitutional right to anonymity in these acts.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first held that signing a petition is itself a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment, because a signature conveys the view that a law should be put to a popular vote, even if the signer has no opinion on the law itself.
- Because the challenge sought to block disclosure of referendum petitions across the board rather than just this one, the Court treated it as a facial challenge, meaning the signers had to show the law would be unconstitutional in essentially all of its typical applications, not just this one.
- The Court applied 'exacting scrutiny,' the standard used for election-related disclosure rules, which requires a substantial connection between the disclosure requirement and an important government interest, with the strength of that interest matched to the seriousness of the burden on speech.
- The Court found Washington's interest in protecting the integrity of its referendum process - catching fraud, weeding out invalid signatures, and promoting transparency - substantial enough to justify disclosure of petitions generally, since verification alone would not catch every problem.
- Because the signers' evidence of harm centered almost entirely on this one controversial petition rather than typical petitions (which usually cover routine topics like tax policy), the Court concluded that disclosure of referendum petitions in general does not violate the First Amendment.
- The Court left open a separate, narrower claim - that release of this particular petition specifically would expose these signers to real threats - for the lower courts to decide on its own facts.