If it's going to come to this, I probably won't sign another petition ever again, (viz. even if it's something I agree with.) Who needs the hassle?

Amy,
I support gay rights and am as far from homophobic as you can be, but I think this is a bad idea for a couple of reasons.

Oregonians on the whole support civil unions (or did they end up calling it domestic partners?... I don't remember). The only ones out there petitioning are going to be the lunatic fringers. I think you should minimize them by ignoring them.

Secondly, the initiative process, which I think is one of the things that makes Oregon better than most states, is under assault from many quarters. I think threatening petition signers with some form of intimidation is a very slippery slope. The next threat of intimidation might be toward signers of a petition with which you agree.

We are too polarized as it is. Political partisanship, from both sides, has torn this country apart. I fear we are heading toward a huge debate, more divisive than abortion or gay rights, over immigration. I don't think we should throw more fuel on the flames of discord by intimidating voters, petition gatherers, petition signers or anyone else.

Okay, I am ready to take the punches now...

You know, the information is public record, so I'm curious to know where people draw the line. Would scanning the forms and posting pdfs of them online be wrong?

If so, why?

If not, why is culling the data from those forms and posting it different?

Should public information be difficult to get to, or easy to get to?

As public records, posting them online is not wrong. But it seems vindictive to me and not very constructive. Acting like this will just generate more hate.

Oddly enough, this funny story along the same lines was posted on The Onion just a few days ago. Now it makes more sense to me.

More hate? They already hate. Vindictive? What would you call constantly trying to push a bigoted agenda, but hoping no one calls them on it?

(Disclosure: It's a well-known pet peeve of mine. Little bothered me more during the M36 campaign than the fact that people wouldn't call a bigot a bigot, and all the mushy middling people who enabled them accomplices to bigotry.)

If you only sign your name to things you truly believe in, I don't think it's intimidation or unfair for that info—that public info, mind you—to be accessible.

Wouldn't an astute political consultant already be gleaning information from these types of documents? It would seem to make sense, for example, that the Republican party would request copies of anti-abortion petitions to add those names and addresses to their database. Just as Democrats would be wise to do the same with progressive measures. I believe such methods also circumvent "do not contact" requirements, allowing parties and candidates to call voters directly.

If it's alright for the political parties to know a homophobe lives at 123 Fake St., why shouldn't I?

I couldn't agree more with Amy's comment about only signing things you truly believe - I think this is just the next step in our openness about our politics. My grandparents would never have told anyone who they voted for. You don't talk about religion, politics and money. My parents will talk to me about it, but only a little - they believe it's private.

Our generation and those younger than us don't understand this - if you're willing to vote for someone, why would you be ashamed to say so? So the same applies here - if you're willing to sign a petition for anything - you should be willing to stand up and admit it.

Agree with the sentiment... but not with the fact that now I might have to think twice before ever signing a pro-gay petition again because now I know the hate-filled bigots might post my name and address on the innerwebs for all the other hate-filled bigots to easily access and send me hate-filled bigoted mail.

It seems like tossing an unwanted piece of hateful literature in the recycling isn't much of an effort—certainly not something worth giving up your convictions over. And I doubt you'll get anything in the first place (it's already public record, so the crazies can get it now if they want to).

So potential e-mails from homophobes or whatever would cause you to not sign petitions for legislation you believe in? Huh? You have heard of spam filters and the delete button right? Jeeze and here I was worried about government big brother types getting to me but yeah, e-mails...scary.

When I first read this, my first thought was, that can't be legal... but it is? Why is signing a ballot considered public record and therefore totally okay to put it online? It seems (not the same but) close in topic to one's voting record. Forgive me if I totally just shot myself in the foot there, but your voting record isn't public record... uhh, right? Nevertheless, yes, if signing a petition means public record--then bring on the anti-homo phone banking, canvassing and PDF-posting.

They're public (if for not other reason but so opposition or other interested parties can double check for fraud, instead of trusting that voter officials checked 'em out thoroughly). The similar petitions for Portland's Voter-Owned candidates were also public—which is why the O's Anna Griffin was able to go through them and spot the irregularities that led to last month's criminal trial for the main signature gatherer.

I think you don't hear about it much because going through so many petitions is onerous at best—it's not like the secretary of state scans them into a nice searchable PDF for you. Just the sheets for Emilie Boyles' 5,000 signatures for Voter Owned Elections was an intimidating boxful. And the homophobes need 10 times that many. You'd have to either pay for staff time and the cost of copies, or haul ass down to Salem to check them out. Not many people bother...

I'd stand outside their window and start doing a modified version of Eddie Murphy's early routine....

"Bigot.....bigot-ass bigot! Hey bigot, I know what you did, bigot!"

We already have a number of volunteers who have pledged to assist with the daunting task of data entry. These will not be pdfs, it will be a large list, as well as a searchable database.

As Amy has said, you should stand behind what you sign and to that I say especially when you are signing a petition to out the heads of families on the chopping block and say it is OK to fire someone SIMPLY because of their sexual orientation.

Caution: Not everyone's signature who appears on a petition, actually signed the petition.

Check out: http://www.ouroregon.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=MediaWatch71806

or

http://www.ouroregon.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=MediaWatch72506

Right wing initiatives hire the most notorious signature forgers. Paid signature gatherers lie about what the initiative is about. Or they say, "I need your signature in triplicate" and have you sign other measures.

I bet most signers knew what this initiative did and are bigots.

But based on the fraud in the initiative system, there could be thousands of signatures that are either forgeries or the gatherer lied about it's content.

You people are so-o paranoid of (a) laws, (b) opposition, (c) straight people, and (d) tolerance.

However, I notice that you're so-o fetished over genitals, yelling, and defiance.

Will there always be people who don't agree with homosexual behavior? To put it to you gently...yes! Duh!

So now you're going to alienate friends, relatives, and other normal gays and lesbians. Great, just great.

Martin Luther King, Jr., the pinacle of civil rights leadership and sound morals, would never, never do something as vicious.

This will go down as anti-American.

This issue is devisive and polorizing. To threaten petitioners is not American. If you think that your cause is just, what are you so worried about. Let the public decide, not a minority of radical politicians and activists. If violence or disruption of people's lives is your cause, I pity all of you. The petition process is one tool to keep government in line, without this process were finished. And someday you may petition about issues as well. Do you beleive in KARMA?