You can find the Ninth Circuit’s ruling here (link via HJB).
A few observations. First, the panel makes this notation about the Supreme Court’s reversal of its stay order: “On October 19, 2009, the Circuit Justice stayed our stay order. Doe #1 v. Reed, No.09A356 (U.S. Oct. 19, 2009) (Kennedy, Circuit Justice). The application was thereafter referred to the full Court which confirmed the stay. Id. (Oct. 20, 2009). Not[h]ing in either of those orders affects our consideration of the merits of these appeals.” Thus, regardless of the stay order, the Ninth Circuit holds that the trial court committed legal error in granting the preliminary injunction. This issue will ultimately be the one subject to the cert. petition to the Supreme Court, should a cert. petition be filed.
Second, the court sidestepped perhaps the key question in the case: “The State contends, with some force, that signing a referendum petition is not speech, but is instead, a legislative act, i.e., that it is an integral part of the exercise of the legislative power reserved to the people by the Washington Constitution. See State ex rel. Heavey v. Murphy, 982 P.2d 611, 615 (Wash. 1999) (“‘A referendum . . . is an exercise of the reserved power of the people to legislate .’..” (quoting Belas v. Kiga, 959 P.2d 1037, 1040-41 (Wash. 1998))). Because we assume, for purposes of this case, that signing a referendum petition is speech, we do not reach this argument and intimate no view on it.”
What about Burdick v. Takushi, and the Supreme Court’s rejection of the idea that voting is an expressive activity entitled to First Amendment protection? Does this or does this not apply to signing a ballot measure petition?
Finally, I would have expected more discussion of the ACLF case and some discussion of Brown v. Socialist Workers Party. This will be a very interesting case should the Court choose to take it.