Tweet
Petition fraud is a serious and ongoing problem in many states, and anti-equality forces have been known to use unethical or illegal methods of filling up their petitions. Methods range from the simple copying of names and addresses from phone books or other petitions, to bait & switch, where the signature gatherer misrepresents the intent of the referendum to a trusting voter.
In an effort to keep electoral politics transparent and honest, Washington’s Secretary of State makes the names of people who sign referendum or initiative petitions part of the public record if the petition gets certified. Similarly, the Washington Public Disclosure Commission posts the names of donors to PACs, candidates and political campaigns.
Today Brian Murphy announced the formation of WhoSigned.org.
WhoSigned.org, a grassroots organization of Washington State residents, announced today that it would make the names of Referendum 71 petitioners looking to overturn the expanded domestic partnership law accessible online.
While Murphy’s stated goal is to facilitate meaningful discussion between petition signers and those affected by the petition’s goal, his online database will serendipitously perform a different service: providing voters with a simple means of determining whether they are victims of petition fraud. This is vital in a state where the Secretary of State only checks 3% of signatures for authenticity. Recently in Massachusetts, thousands of people, including a city councilor and a television sports director, had their names fraudulently placed on anti-equality petitions.Here is an excellent news report on how easy and prevalent petition fraud is.
Some people are queasy at the thought of the names of petition signers being part of the public record. It is important to remember that with referenda and initiatives, the voters are temporarily assuming the duty of legislators. Real legislators publicly co-sponsor bills, declare to constituents their position on bills and publicly debate bills in the legislative chamber. If voters are going to assume the mantle of legislator, they assume the responsibility of going on public record prior to the vote if they support a particular referendum. If you wouldn’t let legislators negotiate legislation in secret, you can’t be too up in arms when citizen legislators are required to act transparently. As Gay Curmudgeon says
When a voter signs an Initiative or Referendum petition they are undertaking an act of public advocacy and have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If that same Initiative or Referendum gets on the ballot, the voters decision is protected by the secret ballot…If [the names of petition signers were hidden] it would allow a majority of Washington voters to advocate against minorities in secret and with no transparency to prevent abuse of the initiative and referendum process. As history attests, it has always been easier for good people to permit evil in their name when they can do so in secret.
Still, there is no denying that few voters have thought this through, and therefore may see WhoSigned.org as an affront. No surprise then to read this well-considered response from Equal Rights Washington in the Seattle PI
Though WhoSigned.org links to the Decline to Sign 71 campaign, it has no connection to that larger effort, according to Josh Friedes of Equal Rights Washington.In fact, Decline to Sign advocates asked creator Brian Murphy not to go ahead with it, Friedes said.
Now that he has, Friedes says he is concerned it might hurt the positive tone many of the state’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists are hoping to set as they fight to defend the domestic partner law.
“We don’t question their sincerity. We question whether or not this really achieves the common goal of protecting Washington families,” Friedes said.
Friedes said the general campaign is focused on getting people to talk about why they shouldn’t sign Referendum 71, and will not in any way put those who disagree on the defensive, as WhoSigned.org might do.
“We hope people will understand this Web site does not represent the campaign which has the widest spectrum,” he said.
The Decline to Sign campaign has gathered more than 25,000 pledges not to sign Referendum 71, Friedes said.
I tend to agree with Friedes in that it is more fruitful to talk positively to uncommitted voters than to potentially put petition signers on the defensive. But what’s done is done, and there is a silver lining. If petitioners gather enough signatures to qualify Referendum 71 for the ballot, the Secretary of State will release the signers’ names to the public and WhoSigned.org will prove useful in helping detect petition fraud by putting a searchable database online. Everyone wins when democracy happens in the light of day.
10 Comments
the news videoThe news video is actually from a local station’s newscast, not from the national Fox News Channel. The local station is a Fox affiliate, but the story doesn’t come from the notoriously conservatively biased national network. It might sound like a petty distinction, but I think it’s actually kind of important because this news story is definitely legitimate, whereas I rarely trust much that I see from national Fox News Channel. Anyway, good diary on this, and best of luck with your efforts.
This is typicalAs the story says — this is a nationwide scourge.
The anti-marriage group needs to have it’s feet put to the fire, for they are ultimately responsible for the petitions.
The TLBG groups need to be vigilant and demand the authorities do their jobs, and prosecute fraud as it sits on the books, now.
Don’t leave this in the government’s handsNot to imply bad faith on their part–but they have their own procedures and protocols, which may or may not be up to the task, and which may or may not be sufficient.
When we were fighting that fundies’ petition to get our gay rights law struck down, one of our key projects was a phone bank. We contacted a percentage of petition signers at random by phone to verify that they had actually signed the petition and had been informed honestly what its goal was. Most were legitimate. But a surprising number of people we called told us that they had been conned into signing under false pretenses–the usual dodge was to pretend it was actually a pro-environment petition, but they also palmed it off on some signers as pro-women’s rights, or pro-choice, etc. We even found a number of gay people who had signed, having been told it was a pro-gay measure. And a small percentage told us they had never signed any petition of any sort. People were outraged that they had been conned like this, and in a fairly short time, and with relatively little effort, we assembled a large database of people who were willing to testify that they had been victims of electoral fraud.
This is a very effective way of countering the right. When we publicized that we had done this, the fundie leaders panicked at the thought they might actually be prosecuted for doing Jesus’ work. They were so shaken, they left our community alone for years. As a pointed example, the campaign to amend the law to include trans people met with virtually no resistance. Even now, with the county considering LGBT protections, most of the organizers on the other side seem to come from outside the area.
stellar!similar types of fraud happened in massachusetts around the anti-marriage petitions. what was shocking was that it wasn’t even illegal there, just unethical. but the publicity following fact-finding missions and hearings similar to what you described in your county caused enough public uproar that the legislature at least started deliberating on reform. but i’m still astounded that no one thought to put rules in place about something so key to democracy as petitions. talk about major oversight!
ArrogancePure arrogance, Lurleen!
How much you want to bet that if there were petitions taken out to curtail the rights of straight marriage, or recining the tax exempt status of certain churches, every one of those petitions would be scrutinized!
I don’t agree with contacting the petition signersI agree that the primary purpose of the list is transparency. Transparency makes it easier to detect and deter fraud. The ballot box is secret, but everything leading up to isn’t and should never be. I see signing a petition as no different from voting for a candidate at a caucus. I believe that all petition signatures, whether it be for a cause from the left (raising the minimum wage, increasing teacher salaries, requiring gun trigger locks) or a cause from the right (eliminating affirmative action, R-71) are subject to public disclosure. If this is a problem, don’t sign the petition, whether it be from the left or the right. All attempts to influence the legislative process are subject to disclosure.
Our state’s public disclosure act is, itself, the product of an initiative which made the ballot as a result of people signing petitions.
I also think it’s legitimate to refer to the list to see if any of our neighbors, friends, or coworkers are on it. I think Brian Murphy is out of line for suggesting that petition signers should be contacted for an uncomfortable conversation about gay rights. After all, the persons who sign those petitions have a right to do so and have a right to hold the views they hold. My point is that we have an equal right of freedom of association – the right to choose with whom we associate with.
Telephone calls that are made for the purpose to annoy or intimidate are illegal and constitute the crime of telephone harassment. Threats to cause harm constitute harassment. Both are misdemeanors punishible by jail time. A threat to kill constitutes felony harassment. Any use of the list for harassment or other illegal purposes should be subject to criminal prosecution.
I think the petition signers, however, should rest assured that the risk of suffering harassment is remote. I think the more likely reaction of a neighbor, coworker, friend, etc is one of avoidance – simply saying nothing. I think the most common reaction, by far, would be to simply have nothing to do with someone who signed such a petition. They face a greater risk of getting junk mail and telephone solicitations from right-wing political and religious organizations.
And not just 3%the fundies would push to have every single signature verified.
In what way does a polite call to verify that someone signed a petition constitute illegal harassment? Why would you assume that the intent of such calls is “to annoy or intimidate”?
In what waydoes a polite call to verify a signature constitute illegal harassment? Why would you assume that such a call is “made for the purpose to annoy or intimidate”?
Steps to prevent petition fraudLurleen talked about Massachusetts deliberating petition fraud. I had heard they had enacted something (though now that I look for the details I can’t find it). There are simple steps that can lessen fraud. Alas, the only ones I remember now are these:
* Each petition shall be assigned a distinct color and all signatures shall be on paper of the appropriate color (lessen bait and switch).
* The text of the proposal (that which will appear on the ballot) must be printed prominently on each page of signatures.
I mentioned all this to my state senator (a Dem), but at the moment the Michigan senate is controlled by the GOP.