The Shepherdstown Observer vs Jennifer Maghan
This page is a summary of the case: The Shepherdstown Observer vs Jennifer Maghan
The case centers on The Observer’s Freedom of Information Act request for the list of petition names collected in support of a vote on the Jefferson County Zoning Referendum, which took place November 7 2009. The County Clerk Jannifer Maghan refuses to release the names, citing privacy concerns, and her decision was upheld by Circuit County Judge David Sanders, who said that any document prepared by a private citizen group and given to a government body was not subject to FOIA.
The suit was brought by Charles Town attorney Stephen Skinner along with WVU Law Faculty Professor Patrick McGinley.
Briefs filed in this case:
WV Supreme Court Petition foia case
FOIA brief April 16 2010 Shepherdstown Observer to WV Supreme Court
Amicus briefs filed by national journalist organizations
County Clerk’s response to the WVa Supreme Court
Final Brief June 7 2010 by Shepherdstown Observer
Other useful bits of information:
Bluefield Times editorial on FOIA case
Society of Professional Journalists press release
Martinsburg Journal article on US Supreme Court case Doe v Reed
Charleston Gazette June 24 2010
Martinsburg Journal editorial on FOIA case (half way down page)
The West Virginia Supreme Court should not affirm the Circuit Court’s Opinion in light of the recent United States Supreme Court decision released today:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf
“Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough enough valid signatures. Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot. In light of the foregoing, we reject plaintiff’s argument and conclude that public disclosure of referendum petitions in general is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the electoral process.”
The standard of review is exacting scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. Ms. Maghan, the highest court disagrees with you. The public is in the best position ensure transparency and accountability, not one elected official.
Hooray freedom of information!
Congratulations to the Observer for pursuing this issue and to the U. S. Supreme Court for its decision that should resolve the issue in the Observer’s favor.
Leave your response!
The Who?
The Observer on Twitter
Categories
Archives
Poll
Sponsors
Topics