Open Secrets

This looks promising:

The Supreme Court seemed skeptical Wednesday of arguments by gay rights opponents that the names on a petition asking for the repeal of Washington state's domestic partnership law should be kept secret.

Several justices questioned whether people who voluntarily signed a petition asking for a public referendum could then expect privacy. They were concerned that keeping the names of petitioners private might invalidate other vital open records like voter registration rolls or lists of donors to political candidates.

"Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who also called the arguments to keep the names private "touchy-feely."

That's Antonin Scalia saying that.

Jake Blumgart has a summary of the session. This is choice (and it's Scalia again, landing on James Bopp, arguing for the anti-gay groups):

JUSTICE SCALIA: What about just—just—what about just wanting to know their names so you can criticize them?

(Laughter.)

MR. BOPP: Well...

JUSTICE SCALIA: Is—is that such a bad thing in a democracy?

MR. BOPP: Well, what is bad is not the criticism, it's the public—it's the government requiring you to disclose your identity and belief.

JUSTICE SCALIA: But part of the reason is so you can be out there and be responsible for the positions you have taken.

MR. BOPP: Well, then why don't they require both sides?

JUSTICE SCALIA: So that people — people can criticize you for the position you have taken.

MR. BOPP: Then why don't they require both sides if that was the purpose?

JUSTICE SCALIA: What do you mean, "both sides"? The other side hasn't signed anything.

MR. BOPP: The other side...

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: When they sign something, they will be out there for public criticism as well.

MR. BOPP: Okay. But this is a one-way street.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Oh, this is such a touchy-feely, oh, so sensitive about—about any—(Laughter). You know, you can't run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known.

MR. BOPP: I'm sorry, Justice Scalia, but the campaign manager of this initiative had his family sleep in his living room because of the threats.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, that's bad. The threats should be moved against vigorously, but just because there can be criminal activity doesn't mean that you—you have to eliminate a procedure that is otherwise perfectly reasonable.

Quite aside from the fact that the campaign manager is a paranoid freak, the R71 side has no argument. Their position is simply that they want to be able to operate in secret -- look at the fight NOM is giving the Maine Board of Election Commissioners, who've found them in violation of campaign disclosure laws.

It's almost a shame that they don't get to play the Scary Homo Brownshirts card, but that's not the issue before the Court. I'd love to see Scalia tackle some of their examples. (If I find that post that had some of the better ones, I'll give you a link.) What they boil down to is on the order of the guy who was hurt because the gay members of his country club won't talk to him any more because of his support for R71. Poor thing. That's real harassment, isn't it?

As usual with SCOTUS, I hesitate to be optimistic, but it looks like, aside from Alitto, the R71 crowd isn't getting much sympathy. Of course, to expect the Supreme Court to trash a fundamental aspect of the American political system is asking a lot, don't you think?