Parry’s Amicus Brief Supports Public Disclosure Laws

University of Arkansas political scientist Janine Parry joined three other political scientists to file an amicus brief on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Doe v. Reed. In this case, the petitioners ask the court to decide that the First Amendment requires states to keep secret the names of people who sign petitions for ballot initiatives to protect signers from harassment. Parry and her colleagues ask that the petition be denied. They see the case as being about protecting the integrity of public disclosure laws of all kinds.

Parry joined lead author Daniel A. Smith of the University of Florida, Todd Donovan of Western Washington University and Caroline J. Tolbert of the University of Iowa in urging the court to find in favor of public disclosure laws.

“In the era of paid petition gathering to determine public policy in many American states, fraud is a grave threat that only public disclosure can reveal and remedy.  Our brief provides a mountain of empirical data illustrating that reality to counter the phantom menace of harassment the petitioners allege but of which, by the way, we could not find a single, verified example,” Parry said.

She explained the reasoning in the amicus brief as follows: “If the Supreme Court agrees with those who filed suit in Washington State, not only will Arkansans’ access to petitions also be struck, but we believe it puts the public nature of other election and campaign-related information into question, like how much money is raised and spent in elections and where that money comes from.

“The petitioners argue that signing a petition is equivalent to a secret ballot. We strongly disagree. Signing a petition is more closely equivalent to sponsoring a bill in the legislature; it sets in motion a sequence of events that may or may not culminate in a change of public policy but certainly generates discussion. You can sign on to the idea the proposal is worthy of public consideration without tipping your hand as to your personal preferences.”

Furthermore, Parry said, “We urge people to consider what they may not have considered about the petition-gathering process as it currently functions, which is that ballot measure proponents and their allies often keep a database of petition signers already. Why wouldn’t they keep track of the current names and addresses of hundreds of thousands of registered voters who may be sympathetic to their political perspective? If the Supreme Court prevents disclosure once the petitions are formally filed, there will be asymmetry in the ensuing debate. Proponents will be able to easily target interested citizens to vote for the measure while opponents won’t have the same advantage. If anything chills or stifles political speech, that scenario does.”