Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

x close
The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

The Court of Appeals: Release Names

News   October 22, 2009 at 4:39 pm Josh Feit

Last week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said they were reversing the District court’s injunction against releasing the names of the people who put R-71 on the ballot.

Today, in a 21-page decision, Judge Tashima in the Ninth Circuit explains why.

Confused about how this affects the 8-1  Supreme Court ruling earlier this week that said the names had to remain under wraps? We are too.

But the ball is in the Supreme’s court (so to speak).

In other R-71 news: The ‘No’ campaign—the group that wants to the state to renege on domestic partner rights—is now going to district court in Tacoma to keep the names of its donors secret. The Seattle Times has that story.


  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    No more double-secret probation.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    No more double-secret probation.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    My 2 cents: it is Free Speech, yes, but it is Public speech, nor Private speech.
    When a person comments at a council meeting they are afforded Free Speech, Public Speech, and are compelled to identify themselves.

    I am a bit shocked that this has been allowed to go this far.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    My 2 cents: it is Free Speech, yes, but it is Public speech, nor Private speech.
    When a person comments at a council meeting they are afforded Free Speech, Public Speech, and are compelled to identify themselves.

    I am a bit shocked that this has been allowed to go this far.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    My kingdom for a text editor.

    sb “not Private speech”.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    Why the confusion about the SCOTUS action? All they did was hold up the proceedings while they decide on whether to take the case (certiorari). Since you can’t “unrelease” the names once they’re out, it’s appropriate to stop short while the decision is being made.

    If SCOTUS later decides against taking cert, then the names will be released forthwith. If they choose to take the case, it grinds through their procedures.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    Why the confusion about the SCOTUS action? All they did was hold up the proceedings while they decide on whether to take the case (certiorari). Since you can’t “unrelease” the names once they’re out, it’s appropriate to stop short while the decision is being made.

    If SCOTUS later decides against taking cert, then the names will be released forthwith. If they choose to take the case, it grinds through their procedures.

  • michael

    The confusion is explainable, assuming I’m correct.

    9th circuit released their decision last week (or thereabouts) but stated their opinion would be forthcoming. They’d decided but were still working on the written decision.

    In the meantime SCOTUS decided that they may want to accept this case and stepped in to stop any release for the reasons pointed out above.

  • michael

    The confusion is explainable, assuming I’m correct.

    9th circuit released their decision last week (or thereabouts) but stated their opinion would be forthcoming. They’d decided but were still working on the written decision.

    In the meantime SCOTUS decided that they may want to accept this case and stepped in to stop any release for the reasons pointed out above.

  • A from Seattle

    Anybody realize this cuts both ways? If court agrees to open up names for this, it’ll open all votes, petitions for scrutiny by opposing groups in the future. Precedent can be a scary thing people, think about it.

    Is it “donors” they’re keeping secret, or the individuals that signed the referendum? They’re 2 different things.

  • A from Seattle

    Anybody realize this cuts both ways? If court agrees to open up names for this, it’ll open all votes, petitions for scrutiny by opposing groups in the future. Precedent can be a scary thing people, think about it.

    Is it “donors” they’re keeping secret, or the individuals that signed the referendum? They’re 2 different things.

  • RonK, Seattle

    @ 6 — It doesn’t open any votes – just petition signatures, as prescribed by law with prior notice to petition signers.

    And the R-71 move (if not laughed out of court) wouldn’t just hide donors – it would give donors cartes blanches to ignore contribution limits.

  • RonK, Seattle

    @ 6 — It doesn’t open any votes – just petition signatures, as prescribed by law with prior notice to petition signers.

    And the R-71 move (if not laughed out of court) wouldn’t just hide donors – it would give donors cartes blanches to ignore contribution limits.

  • A from Seattle

    Thanks @ 7. As long as it’s fair both ways regardless of the issue, works for me. I thought I remembered a similar case from a few years ago where the names were not released for a different sensitive issue that a similar group wanted to keep private; just exercising caution dependent on circumstances.

  • A from Seattle

    Thanks @ 7. As long as it’s fair both ways regardless of the issue, works for me. I thought I remembered a similar case from a few years ago where the names were not released for a different sensitive issue that a similar group wanted to keep private; just exercising caution dependent on circumstances.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    My kingdom for a text editor.

    sb “not Private speech”.