68 agencies in Washington fail to disclose lobbying

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation found that 68 agencies in Washington had failed to disclose taxpayer-funded lobbying. The Transit Authority was one of the worst offenders and has’t complied with transparency laws by failing to report its lobbying activity for seven years, amounting to to $800,000 in spending.

Supreme Court says Washington referenda ballot names are public

Washington state has resolved an issue with the help of the Supreme Court. Turns out referendum ballot names are public, after all.

Referendum 71 expanded the state domestic-partnership law to grant certain marriage benefits to gay couples. Anti-referendum citizens got the referendum back on the ballot for a vote, and pro-referendum citizens wanted names. Those who got the referendum back on the ballot sued to block the disclosure of those names.

The issue was whether disclosing the names of those who got the referendum back on the ballot would violate the signers’ First Amendment rights. This argument stated that public ballots would ultimately lead to a chilling effect on expression and civic involvement; votes on sensitive issues made public would lead to harassment of those who vote in unpopular ways. The other perspective was to note the legislative nature of voting on referenda. Legislating comes with the presumption of complete openness equal to the importance public votes in a legislature. In this view, referenda votes are public by their very nature.

The Supreme Court ruled that petition signers’ names are not private in an 8-1 decision, with Thomas dissenting.

Repeated themes stressed the significant flexibility of states to implement their own voting systems, the importance of preserving the integrity of the electoral process and the promotion of transparency and accountability in the electoral process.

The justices said the plaintiff, Protect Marriage Washington, had not made the case its petition signers were any more subject to harassment than petition signers on issues as potentially emotional as taxes and property rights. This was one of the major points of those fighting to keep names private: those supporting unpopular positions would be in peril if their privacy was not respected. This lack of security would severely hinder people’s ability to express themselves.

There was also the viewpoint that the actions of private citizens are not a part of transparency: transparency involves the actions of government made public, not the actions of citizens. However, since voting on referenda can be seen as akin to making legislation as noted above, it would be of utmost importance that the votes remain public.

“Remain” public: that was another part of the pro-disclosure argument back in April: petitioners’ names are available through the state’s open records act, the Washington Public Records Act. In essence, the names were already public.

The justices, while deciding that disclosure was necessary, told the plaintiffs they could go to a lower court to get a specific exemption on other grounds besides 1st amendment issues. The chief lawyer said they would do just that.

The balance between privacy and open government remains delicate, and the fact that the court left room for future exemptions begs the question: how much of referendum information will ultimately be deemed public, and how will these lines be drawn?

CORRECTION: One commenter notes: “The issue was not about anti-referendum VOTERS, but the names of those who signed the referendum petition to put it on the ballot. The VOTER information is still private.”

Does “transparency” extend to private citizens’ actions? The Supreme Court looks at WA Referedum 71 case

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Doe v. Reed today, a case from Washington regarding the confidentiality of names of petitioners attempting to repeal Referendum 71.

Referendum 71 expanded the state domestic-partnership law to further grant certain marriage benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

The issue in question is whether disclosing the names of anti-referendum voters would violate the signers’ First Amendment rights. If the court rules it does, that would keep private all referendum and initiative petitions in Washington, and potentially those in the 12 other states that allow citizens to put measures on the ballot.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the implications of signing a ballot-measure petition. It can either be private, political speech deserving of protection, or it can be considered the equivalent of legislators making law, an action with no expectation of privacy.

Those who oppose making the petition signers’ names public include traditional-values organizations, think tanks, and individual-rights groups like the ACLU. They oppose making names public for several reasons:

* Signers could face harassment if their identities are revealed. This happened to supporters of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008.
* Harassment or the threat of it could discourage citizens from actively participating in government.
* The jobs of petitioners could be put in jeopardy if petitioners hold different beliefs than employers
* It’s an example of government-regulated, limited speech.

Stewart Jay, a University of Washington law professor, thinks the court will decide to keep names private. The Supreme Court has ruled before that gathering petition signatures is core political speech protected under the First Amendment, Jay said, and he added the court has a tradition of protecting anonymity for political actions such as leafleting, especially when related to elections.

Those who support making names available include gay-rights supporters, the Washington Secretary of State, 23 states, and media organizations (including the Seattle Times and most of Washington’s daily newspapers). The arguments for making petition signers’ names public include:

* The fact that such information is subject to disclosure upon request, as required by the Washington Public Records Act, according to Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed
* Along the same lines, names should be public because it is a part of transparency needed for people to trust their government.
* Out of 24 states that allow citizen referendums or initiatives, 23 disclose petition signatures as public records.
* There is no evidence that petition signers face harassment when names are public.

Supporters say the burden placed on petition signers is inconsequential compared with the “very compelling, very strong government and public interest in transparency, accountability and fraud protection.” Eugene Volokh, an attorney specializing in First Amendment law, says the state could tell its citizens that their signatures will be public if they want to sign.

Looking at it one way, transparency would dictate that all information be public. This would of course include petition signers. On the other hand, when we at Sunshine Review speak about transparency, we mean transparency as related to the actions of government bodies, officials, and representatives. The actions of private citizens, whether political or not, are not included in our transparency project.

We’d like to know what you think: is making referenda signers’ names public important to transparency? Or is it an invasion of privacy, completely unrelated to transparency? We certainly await the Court’s decision.

Transparency: All the cool cities, states are doing it

I’ve been a little delinquent in showcasing some of the newly launched transparency websites and projects. Here are a few that caught my attention:

In Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Ralph Becker just announced the “Greater Transparency for a Collaborative Government Initiative” that they hope will allow greater input and collaboration between the city and its residents. Officials offered a 30-point work plan and are soliciting advice from the public via this website: transparencyslcgov.com

Open Georgia launched recently, and includes a searchable database of expenditures, including salary and travel, professional services, financial reports, and program reviews.

Washington state released their Washington State Fiscal Information site early last month. Citizens can find state expenditures by fund or account; expenditures by agency, program, and subprogram; state revenues by source; state expenditures by budget object and subobject; and state agency workloads, caseloads, and performance measurements. The Washington Policy Center has asked the state to continue to build on its momentum by establishing a “Taxation Disclosure Act” that would allow citizens to better view how their tax dollars are used and raised, including tax rates and burdens.

I’ll add more as I find them.

Paul Jacob: Another audit, please

Paul Jacob is a veteran transparency advocate and a senior policy advisor at the Sam Adams Alliance. Jacob’s column, Common Sense, highlights a suspicious reaction from Diane Oberquell, a Thurston County commissioner, when she found out Washington state officials were checking on the transparency of local government. From the column:

Last fall, Washington state auditors conducted a government performance audit to see how responsive local officials are to requests for public records.

According to the newspaper The Olympian, this Commissioner Oberquell — I guess it’s a coincidence that her name sorta rhymes with “overkill” — this Oberquell person went “ballistic” when she found out about the audit. Claimed it was an uncalled for “sting” operation.

Hey, if that’s what it was, so be it. Let’s have more of these sting operations.

The irony is that a draft report of the audit has just been released, and it seems Thurston County got an okay assessment. Not the best, not the worst. Middling. So why all the defensiveness?

Hmmm . . . seems mighty suspicious to me. Time for another audit?

Sunshine Review’s inaugural project is to promote awareness about the extent local government websites provide useful, needed information. If you are interested in helping with this project, please go here.