Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Rules Petiton Signatures Are Public Record
Reader SheeEttin reminds us that back in October, the Supreme Court accepted a case testing whether or not petition signers' names could be kept anonymous. (The premise was that the act of signing a petition is covered by free speech, and thus signers are entitled to anonymity, especially to protect them from harassment.) Now the Court has issued its ruling: signatures are part of the public record. "By a strong majority Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a setback for opponents of gay marriage who wanted to keep their identities secret. The justices favored transparency over privacy in a case testing whether signing a petition is a public act. The case began with a bill that the Washington state legislature passed in 2009, expanding the state's domestic partnership law. The new referendum was known as 'everything but marriage' for the enhanced rights it gave same-sex couples. People who opposed the bill gathered 120,000 signatures for a ballot measure asking voters to repeal it. That measure eventually reached Washington voters, who upheld 'everything but marriage.' Those who signed the repeal petition feared that they would be harassed if their names became public, so they went to court challenging Washington's Public Records Act. They argued that signing a petition is speech that is protected from disclosure. But in Thursday's 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed. 'Such disclosure does not, as a general matter, violate the first amendment,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court."
...if you feel about something so strongly that you are willing to sign a petition about it, you shouldn't be hiding your name. Stop being a coward, and own up to your opinions/decisions.
Living With a Nerd
Signing a petition is very much like grabbing a sign and picketing. On the flip side it is similar to casting a ballot. I don't know which side to agree with on this one.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The case began with a bill that the Washington state legislature passed in 2009...
I think it should be expected that if you sign a petition, the information is public. Otherwise, there would be no way to validate the petition. The constitution protects free speech, although not necessarily ANONYMOUS free speech. There are other avenues for anonymous free speech anyway.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
This is good. If the act of signing a petition weren't public, how could we actually be sure that a petition claiming to have a certain number of signatures really did? With petitions that collect enough signatures to have legal weight, at least, this is definitely important; otherwise, any group with sufficient power and money could create fake petitions that nobody'd be able to challenge.
Shouldn't the same be true about voting?
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
It balances things out.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Cowards. If you are willing to put your name on a petition to get a measure on the ballot, then you should be willing to stand by your decision. Claiming you don't want your name to be revealed because your friends and neighbors might think differently about you is no excuse to try and hide from your decision.
It's always funny when those who try to wrap themselves in the veils of freedom and democracy are generally the first ones who don't want others to know what they're up to.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The SCOTUS pointed out that there are exceptions, and the lawyer for the petitioners stated that he believes their case falls in the realm of those exceptions. So it'll go back to a lower court to determine if it within them.
It strikes me as odd though. I thought the whole point of signing a petition was to publicly announce your support for the petition. I mean, if you don't feel strongly enough to write your name publicly, why not just write Mickey Mouse? And hell, if there is going to be no public scrutiny of who is brave enough to actually back the petition, what's to keep the petitioner from just writing Mickey Mouse 120,000 times.
There SHOULD be an element of risk to signing a petition. You have to be willing to put your name on the line, literally. That includes showing support for the issue, and dealing with people who may disagree with you.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Okay, so petition signatures are public record? How about henceforth Congress is only permitted to pass legislation by roll call?
Government of the who by the huh for the what-now?
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
I really don't see the "keep our names secret!" argument at all. If they feel the need to impose their morals upon other people, they should not expect to be able to do so from safe anonymity.
There is a plus side to this: people will have to get serious about what they wish to get involved in. I'm queer identified but there are times when people thing the best thing they can do is just make a signature for a cause, without actually going out and supporting a cause.
Mind you, if you don't have to share your Vote with the general public, these details should probably be kept from their eyes as well. There are people who will harm you, and there is always the chance the Government would put you on a watch list if you supported a change that didn't fit their agenda.
I know I sound like I am sitting on the fence here, but in the end if you want change you have to put yourself behind it, or else it is not something you really want changed.
I have a question then. Since the VOTE is a public action too, does this ruling means that voting signatures should be public too? And don't get me wrong, but i really want to know who voted for who....
The petition process is the first step in the making of laws. Everything about the making of laws, from petition to enforceable law, should be public. Today a minority that claims oppression seeks to use the law to hide its political activity from public view. However, tomorrow it may be a powerful minority--like a financial or military interest that may want to hide its activity from public view. Transparency is best.
If somebody is trying to make a law that infringes upon my freedom, I want to know who they are. This will help me evaluate the law and determine my response to it.
Those who would give up anonymity for privacy will have neither!
Or perhaps cause all particles in the universe to simultaneously implode at the speed of light.
Or maybe the resistance to releasing the names is that most of them are fake anyway, so this "overwhelming" number of concerned citizens is really just a red herring anyway.
More Twoson than Cupertino
"...opponents of gay marriage who wanted to keep their identities secret" == spineless gay Bible Believing Christian Conservative republicans
FTFY :-D
Although I guess saying a "Bible Believing Christian Conservative" is a gay is kind of redundant.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Voting has the identity verified, that how they get away with anonymity. As petitions do not and can not be verified by a trusted source, they need to be public.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
"...opponents of gay marriage who wanted to keep their identities secret" == Catholic Democrats
If I go into a voting booth, I close a curtain and nobody's looking over my shoulder.
If I sign a petition, I can see the names and addresses of everyone who signed the petition before me (at least the ones on the same page I'm currently signing). And after I sign it, I know the next guy, or the signature gatherer, can read what I just wrote.
That's a pretty clear difference in expectation of privacy if you ask me.
I suspect this is modded funny and not insightful because there are some people around these parts that think the 1st amendment to the Constitution is hugely important and that people that might feel the same way about the 2nd amendment to the Constitution are "wacko."
And they have mod points...and they use them.
[UID-HeinzIntel]
If someone comes up to me and wants me to sign a petition FOR Proposition 123456, and I don't sign. Does that mean I'm against it or just that I didn't want to sign?
Maybe they should require all petitioners to require a "yes I agree" or "no I don't agree" checkbox on any petition
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Discrimination is really tough to prove, because you must first prove motive and anything short of the decider admitting it won't do.
That said, look at the 2004 recall referendum in Venezuela, which led to an infamous list of signers being published for "verification purposes" (link in Spanish, starting in page 25). After much damage was done (you're informally uneligible in many public institutions if you "signed against the President"), El Comandante himself order the list to be "buried", but obviously it can't be un-published.
So, it's a matter of what you expect from your government and what they expect to get away with. One thing I've learned is that many politically-aware Americans wish to curb the power of the federal gov't.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
I've promised that I'll be posting copies of the names, addresses and signatures next to the Fremont Bridge in Seattle.
It's a good thing our State Constitution has always supported Public Petitions such as Resolutions, Referenda, and Initiatives are a matter of public record.
The only thing private is one's actual vote at the ballot box - not that you voted - public record - not what you voted on - public record - not what Party Preferential Ballot you asked for - public record.
If they don't like it, they're free to move to Idaho.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's a magical time when those who would speak out against same sex marriage have feel the need to hide from the public.
Irony can be fun!
-A
I think the bigger problem is in how the petitions are validated. I hear stories about how petitions have been thrown out for various reasons (suspicion that the signatures were forged, not having a statement of what the petition was for on the signature sheet, collecting signatures from out-of-state people, etc.).
But Is there any confirmation that the people are who they say they are?
I've signed a few petitions, and I can't remember them ever asking me for ID for them to copy down identifying information (like my bank does when I make a large withdrawal)
So, if we have a contentious petition -- what's to stop someone from going and giving the information for the neighbor they don't like, or head of the local scientology chapter, a politician they didn't like, or anyone else just to be a general prick? ...
Don't get me wrong -- I'm for this transparency change, but I think transparency in government involves more than just releasing the names of the people, but it's going to be difficult to balance against the risk of identify theft or having someone copy their information from one petition to another.. (and I don't have a good solution to the problem; I wish I did.)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Wow, Catholic Democrats - now, THERE's an oxymoron...or just a moron.
Just put fake names on the petition. Personally I put Amanda Hugginkis on all the ones I sign. ~kidding
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
I have signed petitions that, if successful, i would not vote for. Although I disagreed with it, I felt it was an issue that needed to be addressed one way or the other. I would imagine there are other people who have this realization also. So, signing a petition does not necessarily mean that you agree with it, you just agree that it should be on the ballot. No need for secrecy. But when you vote, that is decisive, and necessitates secrecy, as provided by the constitution.
"...opponents of gay marriage who wanted to keep their identities secret" ==
Actually, the LOGS of who voted - not what they voted for - ARE public record. I can tell which elections you voted in; it's public record that you voted - just not who you voted FOR.
A vote is a decision. A petition signature is a public, open attempt to submit an issue to the voters.
Petition signatures need to be public. The number one electoral fraud in this country is falsification of petiition signatures. Hotly contested races will hire outside firms to verify petition signatures on a routine basis, and this is necessary in any adversarial system.
Usually only a small number - 1-5% of registered voters - is required to put a measure or candidate on the ballot, which then leads to a secret vote.
Democracy has risks. If there's any issue that can't muster between one and five percent of people willing to take a public stand on an issue than we're already doomed.
Also, signing a petition is NOT necessarily an endorsement of an issue or candidate. It is merely a declaration that a person feels an issue is worthy of a vote. It usually - but not always - indicates a signer supports an issue. I have signed petitions for candidates who I did not support simply because the candidate I DID support was already on the ballot but I thought the opposing candidate had a right to be heard.
An example in hyperbole:
I have a petition in my hot little hands that asserts that I should be made supreme commander of the earth with authority to decide who lives and who dies. It is signed by over 4 Billion people, all of whom wish to remain anonymous. Can I have my throne now?
Now the Court has issued its ruling: signatures are part of the public record.
The Court decided no such thing. What the Court did rule was that a law that made them part of the public record did not violate the First Amendment. Whether petition signatures are actually part of the public record is up to the states.
How could anyone hope that a petition were valid if the signatures could not be studied to assure that they are not forgeries or non existant persons?
"The signers of the Declaration of Independence have asked that their names be redacted for fear of harassment by citizens of the British Empire" Yeah, that would work...
Think of the larger implication. That means now if you sign a petition to protest any government policy, you could be retaliated against because they know who you are. You're damn right we have a right to anonymity as part of the First Amendment. Otherwise what's the point? Oh well, the Constitution has pretty much gone down the toilet anyway in the last few years. If you believe in the Founders' principles of true freedom and limited govt. you're considered a nut in today's world - like we're not supposed to value freedom and individual sovereignty, like it's a stupid concept. Anyway, for what it's worth, I hate the notion of any individual's information to be public record; a private individual should be just that. In fact, I think public records of individuals is what has helped identity thieves more than anything. (Sure, computers and the Internet have made it easier, but even without them identity thieves have admitted to finding info handily through govt. public records.) Oh well, at least here I can be an Anonymous Coward...or can I?? And I don't believe it's cowardly to want to have your identity and your RIGHTS protected, not abused.
I live in the Seattle area. Among my hobbies and avocations are community theater and gay rights, even though I am straight. I am for same sex marriage (actually, I'm for getting government getting out of the business of licensing marriage and getting religion out of the business of defining it), I've performed them, gratis. However, I have a hard time with this. The more vocal of the gay community were trying to bully state voters who were opposed to a bill that would provide almost all the benefits of marriage to gay couples.
I routinely sign petitions that, even if I disagree with the premise, I believe deserves a fair airing in public. As a result of this action, I had a minor break with some of my gay friends who were very angry and wanted the names of all the signers.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Sign the petition and die for it - that's is pretty good argument for keeping names private if you ask me.
The point of America is to escape religious persecution; that is, escape persecution because of your belief. Make it public and people will likely 'persecute' you in some form or another.
Interesting, how in a time where safety and privacy are so valued, and attract so much attention to the media, that the SCOTUS seems it's appropriate to toss everyone's beliefs out in the open.
I know at least on /. all the most insightful comments are made by ACs.
You cannot reliably connect a signature with an individual.
However, you can look at the petition and see that "Frank McCoy" signed it. You can then take that information to try to intimidate every "Frank McCoy" that you encounter because supposedly one of them is an a irrational anti-gay bigot that wants to repress nice friendly gay people.
Further, you can go to the phone book and anyone named "Frank McCoy" is a potential target for whatever you would like to spew in their direction.
Does any of this mean that the "Frank McCoy" signature wasn't a fake name entered by a 12-year-old from Kentucky? No. In no way does it connect the signature with an individual. However, it does open all the people with the name "Frank McCoy" (or any other which appears on the petition) to the vindictive rage from the gay community that is intent on pushing their lifestyle as far as they can.
The argument pretty much goes along the lines of "Statistically, there is no reason why 50% of the population wouldn't be openly gay if there weren't consequences to being openly gay." So until it is 50-50 you can expect to keep getting the gay agenda pushed and pushed, at least by some people. Sure, Congress is filled with closeted gays. Sure, the Catholic church is filled with gay priests that hate themselves so much they keep preaching how terrible a sin it is. See, it really isn't that much of a stretch to 50%, now is it?
Making petition names available does not lead to better verification (impossible) nor does it lead to more responsible petition signers. What it does do is allow the opposition to the petition to harrass and intimidate signers insuring that nobody will ever sign petitions with strong opposition again.
Sounds like a plan to me.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/13/081013fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all
Have a look!
Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
So nothing has changed since the revolution, the tories are still cowering and unable to have the courage of their convictions, while trying to keep everyone down and in the past and trampling the right of people to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
It's a petition, not a ballot. In fact that it can be used to put measures on the ballot is all the more reason that it shouldn't be anonymous unless there was another system defeating their purpose: i.e. registration of petition signers. If you don't have the courage to take away other people's rights (and no you don't have the right to oppress, trample or suppress a minority while imposing your lifestyle on them), you shouldn't be allowed to try.
Isn't it kind of obvious that the whole point of signing a petition and printing your name (and probably address as well), that you are formally and non-anonymously declaring that you want something?
With anonymity, what is left of the very idea of petition? Nothing; you might as well get rid of the signatures, names and addresses altogether, replace the lines with a grid of boxes, and say at the top, "Check off a box if you want ___" and then give a sheet full of Xs written with different pens in different styles to your government representative to totally impress them with how passionately their constituents feel about something.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Do you write your name on, and sign, ballots? If you ever do, then you'll know that's not a secret ballot, so that will also be a situation where you won't need to get your panties in a bunch when people ask who voted for whom.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In this specific case, we have a group of bigots who do not wish to be subject to harassment because of their bigotry.
Too fucking bad, IMO.
...Thomas really is dumber than Scalia.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
It is a matter of public record I registered and showed up to vote in the 2008 fall elections for the State of Iowa, 2nd Congressional district. What isn't public record is what I put on my ballot. This is where the comparison breaks down: Registering and voting just records the activity. Signing a petition commits a stance to the activity.
I believe the issues are with the process and mechanisms of referendum and ballot initiatives" not an issue of anonomity. These are mechanisms used to craft laws. If these people want to actively and directly participate in crafting laws that effect the public, then they must publicly attach their names to it. Another way to think about it: Voters don't let Congress or state legistlatures anonomously sponsor bills so why should petitioners? Given all of this it doesn't seem like the problem is anonomity.
The real threat to marriage is actually divorce.
41% of first marriages end in divorce. [1]
I would say we should bring out a petition to outlaw divorce. Since, it is obvious who the group of people would be to sign it. I would say that make that petition visible to everyone too. I don't think gays/marriage preservers would mind that. After all we are standing up for marriage!
And of course, we should have the thunderous support of all these marriage preserving groups like NOM -- how could you not support something that promotes family wholeness?? < Cue in Ad of a lonely bedraggled child, saying how he would be perfect if his parents hadn't divorced >
The bible does not espouse divorce [2], so it must be a sin, of course! Hey, you started the wholesomeness of marriage thing. Now it would be hypocritical for you to oppose this, wouldn't it?
Sources:
[1] www.divorcerate.org
[2] Catholic Church and Divorce
Petitions are used to cause governments to react. There are usually laws that require a government to respond if when there are a sufficient number of petitioners. Getting candidates placed on the ballot is just one example. Barak Obama used these rules to have competitors who didn't have the legal number of signatures removed from local elections when he was running in Chicago, for example. This is hardball politics, but it is certainly within the rules. If the list is not made public, what is to prevent a proponent of some petition to add names, either by accident or malice? If the list is public, a 3rd party has the opportunity to look for errors.
Think global, act loco
In most (if not all) cases, we're talking about getting signatures to put something on the ballot. It's just about giving people the chance to vote on an issue. Is verification really more important than privacy over something so minor? I suspect this is more about attacking the petition process yet again.
I've done petitioning her in Colorado and we hardly go a month without having to fight some new bill that effectively outlaws it (through absurd conditions that are impossible to meet). It's no secret that they're openly attacking the process here. State governments are in dire straights from reckless spending and they don't want to be legislatively bound by the will of the people. Pretty much all the legislative energy in this state goes towards fighting citizen sponsored initiatives and I'm sick of it. What the people say, goes! Get it?
People (including the SCOTUS) seem to be forgetting that petitions DON'T MAKE LAWS.
A petition in this case is a proposal to put something up for a vote. That's it.
The VOTE ITSELF is what determines whether the law is created/rejected/whatever.
While I grant that allowing petitions to be even semi-anonymous raises complicated questions of verifications, there are a couple of points:
- law doesn't often seem to hinge on the practical application of the law; that is, we don't decide whether to charge someone with murder based on how much of a chore it will be to actually convict them, do we?
- let's remember that petitions in general are pretty FALLIBLE documents. I could sit down right now and quickly knock out a 500-signature petition, with 500 different signatures. None verified, none validateable. Really, how much worse is anonymity.
Because let's all again remember - a petition is really nothing more than a flag indicating public interest in deciding an issue.
The VOTE that follows is what really determines law.
So why does it really matter if our legislative system is more permeable to more proposals? Ultimately the VOTES decide it, not the proposal process itself. I'd think more ideas, more proposals, are BETTER than fewer.
-Styopa
Article I Section 1
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Most of my extended family are Catholic Democrats.
I haven't exhaustively interrogated them to discover exactly why that is, but probably, they think different parts of each are important than you seem to think they should.
Funny how most of the people here are the same ones that scream and holler any time anyone suggests the internet should not be anonymous. Funny how all the posts are by obvious real names like xyzzy33447uiush.
Might be interesting to see how many people using alias' here called people wanting to the signatures to be kept secret "fucking cowards" -
Look inward children.
Apparently everyone in the US has the right to vote except cowards? The expectation of privacy in a petition is not much different from the expectation of privacy at the voting booth. This is not about gay rights. This about creating an environment where the voters can feel as safe as possible so that the bills passed can express the true desires of the public. I can think of many possibilities for future abuses of this ruling. I also find it frightening that all the arguments against privacy in the petition I've seen in these comments can be used to abolish privacy in the voting booth as well. Or anonymous usage of the internet for that matter. You're all saying we shouldn't ever do anything we don't want to have made public. I thought I was reading Slashdot?
The founding fathers use anonymous writings and publication for there cause. If they hadn't they would have be imprisoned and probably killed for treason.
Yeah, are founding fathers were domesticated animals and cowards.
There is good reason for anonymity. The court recognized that in this case and said it can be determined on a case by case basis.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That they could petition the lower courts to make it non-disclosable if there was "sufficient fear of reprisal".
Was the majority opinion >= 6 in favor? Check.
Was Clarence Thomas opposed? Check.
Clearly, petition signatures should be public.
This ruling puts Third Party voters at a huge disadvantage. Republicans and Democrats, whose candidates are automatically included in the general election, are free to vote for their party without ever having to publicly reveal their allegiance. Third parties, on the other hand, have to do annual petition drives to maintain their access, so if you want to vote Green or Libertarian, now you will only be able to do so if you're willing to publically declare that.
In Washington state, the voter initiative process is equivalent to legislation. I would be mighty pissed if congressional records were suddenly sealed to protect congress critters from harassment, and for all practical purposes people who sign initiatives in Washington state are acting as legislators and deserve no anonymity while doing so.
And, yes, I do recognize the irony in my posting this as an AC.
And why doesn't your argument apply to petitions? If it is theoretically possible to verify that a given voter has been bribed, then a "third party" could also verify whether e.g. Greenpeace petition signers were paid to do so.
Spitting into the wind, but:
The story mischaracterizes the ruling. The Supreme Court didn't decide petition signatures should be public. The state of Washington decided that when they set up the public records law. The Court just decided not to intervene -- decided that the First Amendment doesn't automatically disallow publishing the signatures like Washington wants to.
Boy do I ever want to second Aesculapius: "It's a magical time when those who would speak out against same sex marriage have feel the need to hide from the public." If they need to hide now, they're not going to be doing so well politically in five or ten years.
We all know the real reason someone is in favor of this decision. The vast majority of petitions are by conservatives. Now they and their family members will be subject to losing their jobs, verbal and physical harassment, and other forms of abuse. That is the ONLY thing that was at stake here. All else is rationalization. And of course, the high stakes are the real reason this went all the way to the Supreme Court. Would that it were otherwise, but openness is used selectively and only to weaken a targeted group.
And apparently some whiny (and probably pimply) moderators didn't get the reference. Try Google next time, losers. :)
I've always thought that since they're called "public servants," politicians elected to office should give up their privacy and become publicly broadcast. Basically they need their own reality shows. Camera crews following them 24/7. CSPAN meets Wifeswap. And corrupt politicians would be the sorry people. Bacon would no longer be good for them.
While I think Penn and Teller are very funny, I do realise that they are both fellows of the Cato instiute. The Cato institute is a Libertarian think tank founded by Koch industries and funded by corporations to put out misinformation and propoganda about smoking, environmentalisim, etc, etc. As I said I think they are funny and I enjoy their act but it IS bullshit.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If you are going to petition the government for something, I have as much right to know who it is doing the petitioning as you do TO petition. And I have even more of a right to know WHO it is doing the petitioning. Transparency means you don't get to hide your interactions with the government from me.
It is incredible that you can write what you wrote and be so ignorant that you don't understand what you are actually supporting.
It is also typical how people with such opinions refer to the mother protector of all racist scoundrels: Political Correctness, because it is a brilliant replacement for what it is really going on.
I wish people like you would experience 1 month of apartheid as punishment.
All these fancy technical terms! What the hell is a SCOTUS?
In the old days you did it by rocking up in person, now you do it on paper, it's a public statement of support, and public statements of support should be public.
Fags vandalize and harass. That's how thing have gotten as far out of control as they already have. Lobbying, starting from inside the APA, is the third tool they use to tear down society. It's not any different than any previous outside group trying to exercise a power grab.
You will note that the signature is separated from the vote. When you last went to vote (presuming you _have_ done so), you were required to sign the register. Your ballot was then given to you, and you went to your little kiosk (etc) to fill out your ballot, and then you went to the ballot box and put your vote into it. [unless you e-voted, in which case your vote may have been substituted by the machines choice, but that's a separate rant... 8-)].
The piles of ballots are public record, and available for review.
The signed log book is public record, and available for review.
So you can go and find out that you or I voted in such a place at such a date, but you have no way to determine what you or I voted for.
A petition (the paper kind we use today) is a substitute bowing to modern economies of scale, for the age old practice of being able to "Go to Court" and "petition" the court [originally the king, or then Parliament] and stand before everyone (a public, and assuredly non anonymous action) and do your utmost to _demand_ action.
Petitioning the Crown, Petitioning the Court, Petitioning Parliament, Petitioning Congress and so on have _never_ been granted anonymity because it is an attempt to enjoin or coerce action on a matter that is otherwise not of interest to the body in question. Just as with Carte Blanche, Letters of Attainder, and other such extreme applications of power; it is fundamentally unfair to hold court in secret and without accountability.
The paper thing of today is just a way to raise the bar reasonably by requiring more than one person, or a scant handful of people, in order to spur the legislative process into action; in exchange for this limit that keeps us having to address every crackpot's pet issue, we no longer require the petitioners to show up in person all at once. It's a practical trade off.
The other thing to consider, there is as much pressure to _sign_ some petitions as there is to _not_ sign others. Some guy passes around an anti-gay marriage proposal at your church and you will feel obligated to sign it, even if you already know you are going to vote against the proposition if it gets to ballot.
Without the public review process, individuals will feel the pressure to sing in the immediate, without having to consider the ramifications of signing it in the long term. How many of the people who signed this mess might not have if they knew that doing so _would_ let them off the hook there in church, but would put them _on_ the hook at work, in their local bar, and with their gay boys on the down low?
Politics was never supposed to be a dirty secret act, it is supposed to be a muddy and bloody public act.
Letting instigators rouse the rabble from within a veil of obscurity never leads to justice.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press