Tim Eyman lost a round in court Friday over his effort to make state elections officials answer questions about their policy for making initiative-signers’ names public.

A Thurston County judge put a stay on Eyman’s request to force Secretary of State Sam Reed and other state elections staffers to answer questions about the release of initiative-signers’ names. Eyman also wants them under oath to answer some questions.

Eyman’s attorney, Shawn Newman of Olympia, has sued to block the potential release of petition-signers’ names for as many as 11 initiatives. A lobbyist has requested the release of the names.

But Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks said a similar case dealing with signers of Referendum 71 – the domestic-partnership law approved by voters Nov. 3 – already is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Because a decision in that federal case could trump his, Hicks said he didn’t want to waste court time allowing the requests for discovery to proceed – at least not now.

“Let’s find out what the U.S. Supreme Court is going to do. Then this can go forward,” Hicks said from the bench. “I’m very much in favor of openness, but I also believe in privacy and constitutional rights. … I want to do the right thing. I don’t want to do a lot of work for nothing that turns out to be superseded by what a higher court does.”

Newman had argued that the uncertainty over possible releases of signatures could “chill” the initiative process. He argues that voters might be less willing to sign petitions if they think their names will be made public.

But Jim Pharris, an elections-law expert from the state Attorney General’s Office, argued that the Supreme Court decision could alter which issues require discovery. He said the case should be stayed to avoid wasting efforts; he said any action before the U.S. Supreme Court should be over by June.

Friday’s legal skirmish was the latest in a series of political maneuvers by Eyman, who sponsored I-1033 to cap government revenue increases, and by opponents of R-71. Both are trying to block release of petition-signers’ names.

The Protect Marriage Washington group, which opposed R-71’s “everything but marriage” rights for domestic partners, has claimed in U.S. District Court that releasing the signers’ names to a group that wanted to publish them on the Internet would chill political activity. They cited instances in which R-71 opponents reported they were harassed for their political positions.

Federal judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma agreed that signers’ names should be protected from disclosure. But Settle was overturned in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court now is considering whether to accept the R-71 case for review.

Newman said outside court that he would be surprised if elections officials had not already allowed the R-71 signatures to be released in some way. But asked by a reporter if a release had occurred, Pharris said, “The answer is no.”

Newman contends that the Office of the Secretary of State previously made it a policy not to release voter identities on ballot measures for years. He has cited a 1973 case in which a Thurston County judge upheld the nondisclosure position, one year after voters approved Initiative 276 and its Public Records Act requirements.

That changed under Secretary of State Sam Reed after Eyman’s success in passing initiatives, Newman has contended. State elections director Nick Handy has said the policy changed under the previous secretary, Ralph Munro, acting on the advice of the Attorney General’s Office, which saw the petition records as public.

But Eyman and Newman have statements from former assistant secretary of state Don Whiting that dispute that, and they say the only formal AG opinion on record came down on their side. That is why they have submitted discovery requests that pose numerous questions, including wanting to see any informal opinions or advice they received.

Brad Shannon: 360-753-1688

bshannon@theolympian.com

www.theolympian.com/politicsblog