The primary argument Plaintiffs made on appeal involved whether the petition signatures were constitutionally protected speech violated by the Public Records Act (PRA). In this regard, it was determined that the district court erred in basing its analysis on the faulty premise that the petition constituted "anonymous political speech" while the opposite is actually true. It was further judged that the court erred in its application of "strict scrutiny" to the question, as opposed to the proper "intermediate scrutiny" that was called for. Consequently, after proper analysis utilizing the appropriate legal standard, the court concluded the PRA is Constitutional as applied to referendum petitions. Therefore, the preliminary injunction granted by the district court was reversed. See: Doe v. Reed, 586 F.3d 671, C.A.9 (Wash.), 2009.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Doe v. Reed
|Cite||586 F.3d 671, C.A.9 (Wash.), 2009|
|Level||Court of Appeals|