ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> First Amendment Center

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Constitutional Law

: First Amendment Center

W.Va. high court orders release of petition signatures

By By The Associated Press,
First Amendment Cente

ADVERTISEMENTS

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Jefferson County?s clerk must release signatures sought by a newspaper from an Eastern Panhandle ballot petition, a unanimous state Supreme Court ruled last week.

The justices on Sept. 23 concluded that a referendum petition is a public record when filed with a public body. They also held that West Virginia?s Freedom of Information Act covers such records, ?even though the writing was not prepared by, on behalf of, or at the request of, the public body.?

The opinion makes both those findings legal precedents for West Virginia courts to follow in future cases.

The petition had put an unsuccessful referendum on the 2009 ballot to replace Jefferson County?s zoning ordinance. Before the vote, The Observer of Shepherdstown had a filed a FOIA request for the petition and signatures. County Clerk Jennifer Maghan refused to release the signatures, arguing that they were not a public record because they had not been written by a public body.

Last week?s decision reverses a 2009 ruling by Circuit Judge David Sanders dismissing the newspaper?s subsequent lawsuit. Embracing Maghan?s argument, Sanders also said that disclosing the signatures would violate the signers? privacy and chill the ability of citizens to petition government.

Rejecting those findings, Justice Menis Ketchum wrote that disclosing the signatures under FOIA ?serves a vital function in protecting the integrity of the electoral process and in promoting transparency and accountability in the ?conduct of the public?s business.??

The opinion also cites the June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Doe v. Reed that said people who sign petitions calling for public votes on controversial subjects don?t have an automatic right to hide their names. The justices brought up that ruling during a hearing for The Observer?s appeal earlier this month.

The Sept. 23 decision sends the case back to Sanders, directing him to order Maghan to release the signatures.

The Observer reported yesterday that since the high court?s ruling, Maghan had given the newspaper a certified list of the names of those who signed the petition. The paper also said it was expecting to receive the original petitions soon.

Full post as published by First Amendment Center on September 27, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0322 secs (new cache)