At a Glance
In 2009, Plaintiffs filed suit to prevent Washington State from making petitions connected to a state ballot measure publicly available under the state Public Records Act. Plaintiffs argued that the state records law was facially unconstitutional in connection to ballot measure petitions, and the law was unconstitutional as applied to petitions for Referendum 71, a domestic partnership ballot measure. They argued that, because supporters of the measure had experienced harassment, they were entitled to an exemption from disclosure. On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the law on its face. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for consideration of the remaining as-applied “harassment” claim, which the district court rejected in 2011. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which found that the release of petitions following the lower court’s decision rendered moot plaintiffs’ as-applied claim and dismissed the case.
Back to topAbout this Case
In 2009, Plaintiffs filed suit to prevent Washington State from making petitions connected to a state ballot measure publicly available under the state Public Records Act. Plaintiffs argued that the state records law was facially unconstitutional in connection to ballot measure petitions, and the law was unconstitutional as applied to petitions for Referendum 71, a domestic partnership ballot measure, because supporters of the measure had experienced harassment and therefore were entitled to an exemption from disclosure. On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the law on its face. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for consideration of the remaining as-applied “harassment” claim, which the district court rejected in 2011. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which found that the release of petitions following the lower court’s decision rendered moot plaintiffs’ as-applied claim and dismissed the case.