Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom
1 South 6th Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

PRESS RELEASE
Thursday June 24, 2010
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone: 812/232-2434; Fax: 812/235-3685; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

U.S. Supreme Court Returns Petition Signing Case to District Court

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States, in an 8-1 vote, issued its opinion in Doe v. Reed. The opinion allows Protect Marriage Washington to ask the District Court in Washington for an exemption from publicly reporting the personal information of those who support traditional marriage. Although the Supreme Court denied Protect Marriage Washington’s request to keep petition signers’ personal information private in all situations, the Court agreed with Protect Marriage Washington that people who sign a petition are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and can act to protect their privacy when supporting traditional marriage.

James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for Protect Marriage Washington, the group that had asked the Court to protect the personal information of the nearly 140,000 individuals who had signed a petition supporting traditional marriage, stated, “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals who support marriage should have the opportunity to protect their personal information from public disclosure. While we wish the Court had agreed with us and found that petition signers speaking on any issue should be protected from having personal information disclosed to the public, we are looking forward to returning to Washington and showing the Court that supporters of traditional marriage should have their personal information protected from disclosure.” Mr. Bopp continued, “Supporters of traditional marriage have been subject to death threats, vandalism, and even the loss of their jobs merely for exercising their right to free speech. We are confident that the District Court will agree that these tactics have no place in the discussion of marriage and will prevent the release of the personal information on those who support traditional marriage.”

This case will now return to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, where further proceedings will occur.

The Court’s opinion, as well as other documents previously filed in this case, are available on the Madison Center website, http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org, under the “Doe v. Reed (S. Ct. 2010)” heading.

James Bopp, Jr. has a national federal and state election law practice. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and former Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society.
___________________________
To unsubscribe from this e-mail list, please send an e-mail message with “UNSUBSCRIBE” as the subject to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

On behalf of the Protect Marriage Washington legal team, I want to take a moment to give you an update about the case to protect the identities of the good men and women that signed the petition to place R-71 on the November ballot.

As many of you are aware, Larry Stickney and the legal team traveled to Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, April 28, to present the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.

While it is often difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will rule based on the questions asked during oral argument, I will offer some general thoughts. James Bopp, Jr. argued the case on behalf of Protect Marriage Washington, and it was obvious that he was prepared to handle the tough questions asked by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also appeared very concerned about how uncivil the debate surrounding same-sex marriage has become, a debate that has included death threats and property damage directed at supporters of traditional marriage. Because of this, we are very optimistic that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of protecting petition signers when it issues its opinion later this summer.

Posted April 24, 2010:  Will the Court take a step to remove threats and intimidation from the political playbook?

By: James Bopp, Jr. and Scott F. Bieniek

In November 2008, Californians went to the polls and voted in favor of a referendum to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Instead of celebrating the victory, supporters of the referendum became targets of an intense backlash that included death threats and property damage. The retaliation was enabled in part by a California law requiring contributors of as little as $100 to publicly disclose their names, addresses, occupations and employers. The information, which is made available on the Internet by California, was combined with an online map, providing would-be harassers with directions to supporters' homes. And the retaliation was as much about trying to influence the next vote on same-sex marriage as it was about anger over what had just occurred in California.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States will consider a case that can begin to put an end to such campaign tactics. The case, Doe v. Reed, involves that next vote, a referendum from the state of Washington to repeal a statute granting domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. Protect Marriage Washington, the group that sponsored the referendum, submitted a petition containing the names, addresses, and signatures of more than 138,000 voters who felt the issue was too important to leave to elected representatives.