The original disagreement occurred in Washington in 2009.

Washington passed a partnership law known as the "everything but marriage act" which gave certain rights and responsibilities to state-registered domestic partners. PMW (Protect Marriage Washington) got signatures on a referendum petition to try and put the act on the ballot for voters to overturn. The petition, "Preserve Marriage, Protect Children," received about 138,500 signatures. Washington's PRA (Public Record Act) treats the petition as public record. Interest groups filed public record requests to have the name of the petition signers released. The PMW took this to court arguing that the PRA violates the First Amendment.

Referendum means "The right reserved to the people to approve or reject an act of the legislature, or the right of the people to approve or reject legislation that has been referred to them by the legislature." A referendum petition is a petition where people sign to call a revote on or repeal a law, and suspend the law until the revote takes place. It has a pre-set number of signatures required to be put into action, which varies from state to state.

This case went first to the District court where the PMW won. Then the state had to defend the law in the ninth circuit, where the state won and reversed the decision. The PMW the took it to the Supreme Court.

The petitioner, John Doe was represented by James Bopp Jr. And the respondent, Sam Reed was represented by Robert M. McKenna.

The prosecution opened up their argument with the fact that the release of these names could lead to harassment. He also argued that there wasn't a sufficient governmental interest to validate the names release. He then gave an example of how easy it would be in the modern day and age of someone to use the names to find where the signers live, "Map Quest" it, and then go to harass them. The prosecution argued that there are passionate supporters for any cause, who may be willing to use violence to reach their end. He ended by stating the real problem with the case is not the critiscm signers may receive from the public, but the government requiring the release of these names.

The defendant argues that this law was constitutional as it allowed for public participation. It was also argued that any possible reluctance to sign due to having your name released is not significant reason in comparison to the benefits of the petition's release. He also argued that the public both has "fraud interest" in seeing for themselves, and verifying lack of fraud in the petition, along with "informational interest" in knowing who was in charge of the movement. He also cited a lack of previous violence and harassment to counter his opponents arguments. He also used the argument that a referendum petition is different from a normal petition, as the are telling the government what to do instead of asking.

This was an argument over the first amendment, and it's definition of private participation in governmental procedures, the rules for possible harassment, and the ability of the government to share specific information.

This depiction made a lasting impact as being a reference for compelled disclosure discussions.

There were 8 votes for Reed and one vote against, thus the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the disclosure of referendum petitions does not as a general matter violate the First Amendment. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that an "exacting scrutiny standard" is the appropriate standard for determining First Amendment challenges in the electoral context. The standard requires a "substantial relation" between the disclosure requirement and a "sufficiently important" governmental interest. Here, the state met its burden in establishing that its disclosure requirement was constitutional.

Justice Samuel A. Alito concurred. He noted that the Court's opinion did not bar "as applied" exemptions from the PRA's disclosure requirements. To obtain an exemption, a speaker must show "a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties."

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also concurred. She agreed that in this case, given the relative weight of the interests at stake and the traditionally public nature of the referendum process, the Court correctly rejected the constitutional challenge to the PRA.

Clarence Thomas dissented. He argued that the PRA severely burdens the First Amendment right to free speech and "chills participation in the referendum process."

Is it important for the voters to know why an I initiative was proposed?

"Would it be a legitimate public interest to say I'd like to know who signed the petition because I would like to persuade them their views should be modified?"
- Justice Stevens

Should this decision stay the same if it is a normal petition instead of a referendum petition?

I believe that this court case was decided correctly, as I see sufficient public and government interest to allow for the release of names.