Civic courage

The urge to push public proceedings into the shadows is too great for some to resist. Plenty of people claim to be in favor of open government, then seek secrecy to protect themselves from the unpleasantries of the political process.

In arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, justices were rightly skeptical of the latest, incremental attempt at making transparent government opaque.

Gay rights advocates had requested the names of all 138,500 people who signed a petition to repeal Washington state's domestic partnership law. The group Protect Marriage Washington fought that public records request, arguing that those who voluntarily signed a document seeking a public referendum would be harassed by same-sex marriage supporters if their names were released. (Voters ended up favoring the extension of legal rights to domestic partners.)

Anyone who signs an initiative petition must know that they're injecting themselves into an issue that, in all likelihood, is being pursued because of legislative inaction or in direct protest to legislative action. Petitions are, by their very nature, political hot potatoes.

And they're not secret ballots. The state must verify that petition signers are registered voters. Voter registration rolls are public records, therefore, so are the petitions. How could residents check that the signature gathering and verification process were legitimate without access to such information?

"Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," said Justice Antonin Scalia, adding that arguments to keep petition signers' names secret were "touchy-feely."

Exactly. Justices should order the release of the petition signers' names -- and make it clear that all future requests for petition signatures be granted.