October Term 2009 · Docket 09-559
Does Washington's law forcing referendum signers to reveal names violate free speech?
the sides that brought the case seek to block name disclosure. the opposing sides defend the public's right to know who supports a ballot measure.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
James Bopp argued no person should face harassment for political participation.
Bopp claimed the First Amendment protects private associations from compelled disclosure.
Robert McKenna argued the public must identify errors and fraud in government.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the First Amendment analysis applies to all cases.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 9-43 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 9-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Washington law requires referendum signers to publish names. the sides that brought the case claim this chills speech. the opposing sides argue transparency serves the public interest.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 9-43 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 9-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 28, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the name-disclosure requirement.
the opposing sides want the Court to uphold the state's transparency law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 9-43 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 9-43
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue compelled disclosure intimidates citizens and violates the First Amendment.
the opposing sides argue voters need signer identities to evaluate referendum support.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 9-43 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 9-43
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if requiring campaign contribution disclosure is similar.
Justice Sotomayor asked if voters care about signer occupations for tax measures.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-9
Why it matters
This case defines the balance between voter privacy and public transparency. It shapes how citizens participate in ballot initiatives. It impacts future referendum campaigns nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 9-43 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 9-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 9-43 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 9-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 9-43 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 9-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.