 |
|
Blog
|
|
Welcome to the Holtzman Vogel Law Blog. We aim to keep you
up to date on important legal developments and other items of interest. On this
blog, we'll track developments in the news and changes to the rules and regulations
affecting political committees, corporate PACs, trade associations, non-profit groups
and advocacy organizations. We'll also keep you updated on the lobbying and ethics
arena. The Law Blog is designed to supplement our regular newsletter.
On behalf of the Holtzman Vogel team, I hope you find this site helpful and interesting.
And we hope you'll become a regular visitor. (If you'd like to receive our newsletter,
please click here to sign up.)
Jill Holtzman Vogel
|
Monday, April 26, 2010
Seattle Times: Supreme Court takes up Wash. case involving disclosure of petition signatures
From the Seattle Times: "The U.S. Supreme Court this week will hear a Washington state case that could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is a private, political act or whether the names of those signers can be made public. The case stems from the contentious battles over Referendum 71, in which traditional-marriage supporters last year unsuccessfully sought to overturn an expanded state domestic-partnership law that grants 'everything but marriage' benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Those who backed the repeal effort are trying to shield the petitioners' names from disclosure, saying they could be harassed if their identities are revealed. Some gay-rights supporters had requested the names and said they would post them on the Internet. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed says such information is subject to disclosure upon request, as required by the state's Public Records Act."
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
OMB Watch: Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure Laws and the First Amendment
From OMB Watch: "On April 15, the Institute for Justice (IJ) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two volunteer groups challenging part of Washington State's grassroots lobbying disclosure law as a violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and petition. In Many Cultures, One Message v. Clements, the groups claim that having to register as grassroots lobbying organizations is burdensome, and revealing information about their financial supporters could leave donors open to threats from opponents."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
AP: Wash. gov's e-mail breaks campaign finance law
AP reports "Gov. Chris Gregoire violated state law by soliciting money for a congressional candidate during the legislative session, state regulators said Wednesday." The FEC has examined a Washington legislative session fundraising ban in the past, and found that it was preempted by federal law with respect to fundraising by and for federal candidates.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Seattle Post Intelligencer: Convicted felons entitled to vote, court rules
The Post Intelligencer reports, "In a move that could see Washington inmates voting from prison, a federal appeals court has thrown out the state's restrictions on felon voting.
Under state law, residents convicted of a felony currently lose the right to vote until they are released from custody and off of Department of Corrections supervision. Tuesday's split ruling by a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel puts those restrictions in doubt, as two of three judges reviewing the voting rights lawsuit found that the state restrictions unfairly penalize minorities. . . . Speaking on the ruling, Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed said the court's decision came as a surprise, in part because three circuit court panels elsewhere in the country came to opposite conclusions while reviewing similar cases."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Michael Dorf: Is There a Constitutional Right to Sign a Petition Anonymously?
Professor Michael Dorf examines the Washington state petition case, and concludes that "Whether there is such a right appears to be an open question." He suggests that the better solution to the issue may be legislative: "In the end, signing a petition for a ballot initiative looks very much like voting on such an initiative. And American states have reached the unanimous conclusion that the best way to run elections is with secret ballots. Likewise, even if it is not constitutionally required, the best way to run large petition drives will typically be by providing some substantial anonymity for signers. Thus, Washington would do well to construe or amend its Public Records Act to protect the anonymity of the Doe plaintiffs. The shield that Washington's conservatives seek today could prove invaluable for progressive causes—including marriage equality—tomorrow."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Seattle Post Intelligencer: U.S. Supreme Court could be next stop for R-71
From the Seattle Post Intelligencer: "Washington voters upheld a new law last week that greatly expands gay rights, but the legal questions that arose from Referendum 71 may not be resolved for months. A conservative group is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the public release of the names of the 138,000 people who signed petitions in hopes of overturning the "everything but marriage" same-sex domestic partner law. Gay rights groups have said they'll post the names online, and some petition signers fear harassment or threats if their identities are revealed. . . . The Supreme Court justices, who ruled 8-1 to reinstate a court order blocking the release of names, must now decide whether to hear the case. That decision might not come until the summer."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
NYT: Privacy Looms Over Gay Rights Vote
From the New York Times: "At a time when voters in many states are using petitions to qualify ballot measures on issues from gay rights to property rights, a legal dispute over the identity of 138,000 petition signers here is raising new questions about privacy, free speech and elections in the Internet age. On Tuesday, voters in Washington State will decide whether to extend to registered domestic partners the same rights married couples have, short of marriage. But the campaign over the referendum, placed on the ballot by opponents of same-sex marriage, has been overshadowed by one issue: whether the individual names of the petitioners should be made public, and ultimately, circulated on the Web. . . . Some advocates for releasing the names who support the expansion of the state’s domestic partnership rights say they want to post the names of petition signers as a check against fraud but also to encourage potentially “uncomfortable” conversations with the people who signed the petitions."
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
George Will on Disclosure of Petition Signatures
George Will writes, "On Tuesday, Washington residents will vote in a referendum that has national significance because of a controversy about disclosing the names and addresses of those who signed petitions to trigger the referendum. Disclosure threatens the right to privacy, which is under assault by a spreading movement -- call it thuggish liberalism -- that uses intimidation to suppress political participation. The referendum is on a new state law that some say establishes same-sex marriage. This is a matter about which people differ. What is, however, unambiguously wrong is the attempt by some supporters of the law to force disclosure of the names and addresses of the 138,000 people who signed the petition bringing about the referendum. This can have no other purpose than to make it possible to harass those signers."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Los Angeles Times: Gay marriage fight fuels debate over petitioners' rights; Gay rights advocates have sought to use petition signatures to expose their opponents, which raises the question: Is signing a petition a public or private act?
The Los Angeles Times has this report on the ongoing battle over petition signature privacy - "The fierce fight over same-sex marriage in California and elsewhere is creating pressure to recognize a new free-speech right that could keep petition signatures secret.
The Supreme Court voted last week to block release of the names of more than 138,000 people in Washington state who signed petitions seeking to repeal a same-sex domestic partner law in a ballot scheduled for Nov. 3.
The Supreme Court's intervention set off a broad debate among election-law experts and 1st Amendment scholars over what is private and what is public when it comes to politics."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Seattle Times: Judge shields signatures in gay-rights referendum
The Seattle Times reports "A federal judge has continued to keep private the names and addresses of those who signed Referendum 71, saying they likely are protected under the First Amendment and that the state failed to prove a compelling public interest in their release. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma granted a preliminary injunction today, blocking the state from making the petitions public."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Seattle Times: Labor bill killed after e-mail links its fate to campaign cash
The Seattle Times reports that "An e-mail from a state labor group linking campaign donations to contentious worker-rights legislation has prompted legislative leaders to kill the bill and request an investigation by law enforcement. . . . A spokesman for Senate Democrats said the case raised the question of interest groups providing contributions in exchange for specific legislation, and that by killing the bill, legislative leaders are sending a message that the Legislature is not for sale."
Click here to read the entire post.
|
 |