Because the daily updated signature validation numbers are of ongoing and intense interest for some of us, I will bump this updated diary to the top of the page each afternoon (Pacific time) after the daily results have been released. All the action will remain below the fold so as to keep the diary profile slender.
Last updated: 4:15 pm on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. Data are provisional.Referendum 71 voters will be asked to approve or reject the domestic partnership law in November. Vote “APPROVED” to preserve the new domestic partnership law. Sign up with Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST.org) to help get the word out.
Here are the latest numbers as of 4:15 pm Tuesday, August 25, 2009:
| Signatures in Volumes | Accepted | Rejected | % Rejected | Registration Not Found | Signature Image Pending | No Match | Duplicate |
| 110,288 | 97,261 | 13,027 | 11.81% | 10,580 | 44 | 1,089 | 1,314 |
Click here to find the link to the spreadsheet showing the breakdown of signatures by bound volume. About 80% of the raw signatures submitted have been examined so far. The percent rejected increased slightly from Monday’s value of 11.72% to today’s of 11.81%, and is still below the rate of 12.43% needed for the referendum to fail to qualify.
Last week, David Ammons from the Secretary of State’s office said that the SoS had begun a new, 3rd level of re-rechecking of heretofore rejected signatures
[Some signatures were] rejected because they weren’t found in the copy of the state voter database used for checking signatures. Because checkers have been working off of the same version of the database that was used to check Initiative 1033 earlier this summer, new voters who registered in July didn’t show up [in the voter database]. As the Elections Division begins a “recent registration check,” about 12 percent of those originally not found are being picked up via the current database that master checkers can access.
Of course there was an obvious problem with using the up-to-date database, and that is that the signature of a petition signer who may have signed before registering to vote could now be considered valid. This problem hasn’t escaped our team. Washington Families Standing Together is on the ball. Check out this document just posted to the Secretary of State’s Referendum 71 Info page. It is from WAFTS’s Chair, Anne Levinson, addressed to Mr. Hamlin of the Secretary of State’s office.
On August 17, 2009 the Secretary of State (OSOS) began using an additional database as part of the signature certification process for Referendum 71. The OSOS had discovered that the database against which signatures were being checked was current only through June 19, 2009. Thus, petition signers who had registered after June 10 may have been categorized as ‘not found’ during checks by the initial checkers and then the master checkers. To remedy this, OSOS added the additional step of having all signatures that had been, and throughout the remainder of the process are determined to be, ‘not found’, re-checked for a third time using this ‘live’ database that includes anyone who has registered to the current point in time.In initiating this new step in the process, the OSOS disseminated procedures for the staff, including this directive: “The registration date of a voter registration record is no a basis for rejecting a petition signature.” In light of this, some number of previously rejected signatures have now been accepted, and will continue to be accepted, where the date of voter registration did not fall in the time period from June 19 – July 25. As you know, RCW 29A.72.130 requires that a person signing a referendum petition must be a legally registered voter in the State of Washington and attest to the fact when he or she signs a petition.
Pursuant to Washington Public Disclosure Act, RCW 42.56, Washington Families Standing Together (“WAFTS”) requests copies of or access to the following documents or categories of documents related to Referendum 71:
(1) A list identifying by volume number, petition number, line number and date of registration, those signatures initially rejected as ‘not found’ and subsequently confirmed as ‘not found’ by a master checker, for which the first two determinations rejecting the signature were overturned upon a re-review of the signature by checkers using the ‘live’ voter registration database, where the date of voter registration for each was prior to June 19, 2009.
(2) A list identifying by volume number, petition number, line number and date of registration, those signatures initially rejected as ‘not found’ and subsequently confirmed as ‘not found’ by a master checker, for which the first two determinations rejecting the signature were overturned upon a re-review of the signature by checkers using the ‘live’ voter registration database, where the date of voter registration for each was on or after July 25, 2009.
You can read the rest here. Is our side good or what?
Please enjoy this updated “Approve Ref. 71″ video, then pledge to vote APPROVED in November, and ask everyone you know to do so too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related:
* Referendum 71 signature validation update: Day 3 & 4
* Random Numbers
* The Skinny on DP Dissolution Rates in Washington State
Referendum 71 voters will be asked to approve or reject the domestic partnership law.

REFERENDUM 71
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be:
Approved ___
Rejected ___Ballot Measure Summary
Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.
DONATE TO WASHINGTON FAMILIES STANDING TOGETHER !
PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE HANDOUTS AND PLACARDS !



101 Comments





Keeping the diary profile “slender?” What are you? A sizeist?
Seriously, I have grave concerns about this nation going forward. Health care reform is but a tip of the iceberg. The crazies are coming out of the woodwork and I won’t even venture to guess where we are going in 2010 and 2012.
Oh yes I will. The WRONG direction. I keep saying this, as I have been since Bush II was (s)elected, but we may need to keep a keen eye on where we think we might want to live in the event of a worst-case scenario.
Tea-baggers R us. Racism is going to run rampant during the next two years. Trust me. I grew up in it and I know it.
Thanks Lurleen!Thanks for the updates! And yes, just got your most recent e-mail.
Therefore, Thank you Pam for allowing this top post every evening! We all (okay most of us) greatly appreciate it.
Thank you!I really appreciate the updates!
Question?Lurleen – do you have any nails left?
Thanks for the updates – if the fundies make their number you’ve got a contribution coming from Nick and me. If they fail, then we are going out for steak, lobster and a whole lot of pie made from Washington apples.
Answer?I just knocked off the local pharmacy for their last box of press-ons, lol!
Thanks for the contribution/pie comment. As it happens, I was just sitting here wondering how I might want to celebrate the demise of this referendum. I guess as long as I’m in a big raucous group of happy queers ‘n allies, I don’t care if I celebrate with champaign or crackers. But now that you mention pie…
I’ll bake you one From the apples on our incredibly prolific tree.
I agree that if they don’t make their number we should have a big celebration. We’d drive to Seattle for that in a heartbeat!
Oh please please pleaseThanks for the timely updates.
Good luck Washington.
Thank you for the updates, Lurleen!Although the early results look promising for us, I’m still keeping my fingers crossed. And I really appreciate your efforts in helping to keep us Blenders in the know.
But now JohnVisser has me craving apple pie. :-/
LurleenWhoever is maintaining the website over there really screwed things up this morning. At the very top, the propaganda spewing reich-wing would have a field day. The “rejected” signatures dropped miraculously from 4057 to 3559 which now is showing an error rate of 11.63%
And don’t think for a minute the haters won’t use that misinformation to their advantage.
they didn’t screw anything up.the only thing that is screwed up is people assuming that provisional numbers from the first few days of signature checking are good material upon which to decide “it’s over”.
Dave Ammons explains the changes here
I hate to say “I told you so” to people who have branded me a debbie downer for warning that it was too early to announce the death of the referendum, but I TOLD YOU SO. Now I hope those celebrating prematurely will get off their butts and get themselves to a WAFST.otg phone bank to start preparing voters for the November ballot. And I sincerely hope that Senator Murray will be the first in line to help on volunteer night, since he FAILED yesterday to tell people that yes the news may be encouraging, but IT’S NOT OVER UNTIL IT’S OVER.
Very clean…Are they going to make it in the record books for having the cleanest signature gathering ever?
they just might.so far their acceptance rate is impressive.
You know………….the more and more I think of David Ammons response the fishier the explanation gets.
It appear as though a very high majority of the numbers added back in were from signatures that were rejected for “signature doesn’t match the one on file.” The reason this smells fishy to me, is that even though there is the first person that rejects it, it is then forwarded to people from each campaign that looks it over and rejects it, but then a final “master checker” overrides all three of the first opinions and adds them back in?
Are the “master chekcers” hand-writing specialists? Or what gives them the authority to override those other opinions?
You would think once a signature is “officially rejected,”
it is “official.”
P.S. I guess I should have come back and posted his reply instead of having you do the home work for me, huh? LOL!
DuplicatesWhen a person signs twice or three times, do they all get regected, or all but one?
According towhat David Ammons said in the comments section of one of the related From Our Corner blog posts, one iteration of the signature is Accepted (if it meets the other criteria), and the excess copies are counted as Invalid.
AmericaBlog Gay site has articles on this tooThey mentioned almost 15% invalidated signatures bumped up the average to 13.5%.
His coverage isn’t as thorough as Lurleen’s but you might enjoy checking it out.
http://gay.americablog.com/200…
obsolete informationunfortunately that report is based on old and inaccurate information. as of this evening, the referendum is on a trajectory to qualify. that could change back again in our favor, of course, but imo we need to proceed with the assumption that the referendum will be on the ballot. please have your washington friends go to http://www.wafst.org and sign up to volunteer. the ballot language is counter-intuitive, so we should waste no time and start explaining it to voters now.
Would it be worthwhileto ask that people who didn’t sign call in to make sure their names/”signatures” aren’t on the petition? Looking to screen out fraudulently-obtained signatures doesn’t seem to be part of the verification process.
even ifa federal judge hadn’t placed a temporary restraining order on the release of the petitions to the public, and even if you found that someone had stolen your identity and faked your signature, there is nothing you can do about it, according to the secretary of state. you can file a letter of complaint and write a letter to the editor, but apparently if someone forges your signature well enough to pass the “signature match” test, your signature is on that petition forever.
similarly, if you were duped into signing, there is no way to have your signature removed from the petition later. it’s signer beware.
Lurleen, a question for youIt looks like this is going to be extremely close. And with the controversies over the role of the “master checker”, it seems likely that there could be a potential for litigation.
I haven’t heard a single word in the press from the pro-equality groups in WA. Are they monitoring the count? Are they prepared to go to court to challenge the result? Do you know if they have a lawyer?
I’m glad you asked!Yes they are monitoring the count. Both our side and the other side have observers present during the signature checking. The WAFST coalition includes several legal organizations including ACLU, Lambda Legal, Legal Voice and QLaw. Also, the WAFST chair and campaign manager are both lawyers. So I think it is safe to say that yes, they have a lawyer.
I would image the decision whether or not to challenge the result will depend on how the signature checking process goes and if, by the end of the count, they feel there is grounds for a suit and whether it is winnable and a wise use of time and resources.
Thanks! What a nail-biter this is! I think you made an excellent point- about the need for the master checker to check not only the rejected signatures but the accepted ones as well. If only the rejected ones get a “second bite at the apple” that biases the whole process in favor of validation. This actually could raise an issue under Bush v. Gore, which constitutionally forbade different standards to be employed in assessing and counting FL ballots. I don’t see why the same principle wouldn’t apply to signature verification.
Tweet from the SoSLooks like the Secretary of State’s office was tweeting this at the same time I was updating the diary
i agree. thanksI have going between here and the Sec. of State page like many others. Thank you for translating the numbers.
aj
Somewhere I read conservatives were going back to get electronic signaturesFor these disputed signatures. Is that to verify what the signature should look like, or are they allowing unsigned cards, to have a signature added on after the closing date?
other side is expressing some concerns..got the lovely “faith and freedom” email this morning, seems they are getting ready, in case they lose, to challenge.
“We have people in the Secretary’s office observing the process. They have expressed some concerns, which we are presently looking into. I cannot say more on that today, but we will keep you posted.”
of course they wouldn’t want to say what those concerns are, if the count goes their way they certainly wouldn’t want to be on the record questioning the methods that led to it.
Yikes, this is close!I guess the oppo did a good job of getting good signatures, but we’ll soon see if it was good enough to qualify for the ballot. But nonetheless, we can’t take any risks by one good poll or one blog rumor on false R-71 signatures lull us into complacency a la California pre-Prop H8. I hope all our Washington brothers & sisters get working on R-71 ASAP!
I have always wondered if a signature was somehow fraudulently added to one of these things what or if there is anyway for removal.
A person would think that if they checked and discovered their name on one of these things without their knowledge, there should be a way to remove it.
But then again, when I lived in Florida where I had my legal name change, both my old and new name appeared on the voter prescient sign in sheet. I could have voted twice.
Lets just hope all efforts to keep LGBT people as second or third class citizens fail.
different rules in different statesi’m not sure what the rules might be in your state. it wouldn’t surprise me if they differ from state to state on this question.
LurleenI’m REALLY concerned with the process that is going on with the counting of these signatures.
Do you have the previous numbers you had posted from their website on Friday? I recall them reporting that 35,000+ signatures had been checked as of Friday, and today they are reporting that only 33,000+ have been checked.
Where and how did they lose 2000 signatures in their totals over the weekend?
Signature disclosuresJust a gut feeling, the petition signatures will be sealed if the 120,577 required to put the referendum on the ballot isn’t achieved.
What I would like to know Will someone please tell me how this group of bigots who ran a histarically unorganzied campaign was able to pull off getting enough signatures for their ballot initiative? This is ridiculous!
I’m tired of fighting this bulls..t state by state. For each step forward we’re always kicked a step backward.
I don’t think you are going to have to worry about that.
it actually makes sense.the sos has changed what numbers they are reporting. in the past, they were reporting together as a single total the number of signatures that had been finalized, plus the number of signatures still in the review process (awaiting the master checker). they have since realized that that reporting scheme only leads to confusion, so now they are only reporting on the number of signatures that have been finalized. check out the sos’s blog at the link above for more details.
according to the sec’y of state,the only thing holding up the release of the petitions is the temporary restraining order placed by a federal judge. if the tos hadn’t been slapped down, they would have already released the data. data release is independent of the number of signatures ultimately validated.
easy.apparently about 4% of washington voters are anti-family zealots who feel driven to hurt senior citizens and parents trying to protect their children. any campaign can succeed despite it’s organizers if enough people are willing to sign on despite them.
it sucks if this gets on the ballot, but it is comforting to me to know that there was not anything approaching a landslide of support for the petition. if it qualifies, it will do so by barely squeaking by.
The only silver lining I see…Is the high number of duplicate signatures. If things follow the current projections with no major changes, then the duplicate signature value should rise exponentially due to the number of overall signatures counted and the more likely a duplicate can be found.
Will that number rise high enough? Not sure. Better get the campaigning shoes out.
definitely get the campaign shoes out.in fact, put them on and and start running.
This is scary…What the hell, Washington? Man, this is getting upsetting. Especially since this is going to be so tricky to explain to people. (I bet my gay coworker who thinks it’s a brilliant idea to move to a state with no second-parent adoption before attempting to have a kid with her partner will be impossible to dissuade from voting the wrong way…)
Then start now asking her to repeat to back to you:“Preserve the Domestic Partnership Law – APPROVE Ref. 71″. Start each conversation with, “Now what did cbear teach you to say?”
You can also email her the ballot language, which makes it a lot easier to understand why we’re voting APPROVE:
What is up with the duplicate rate?It’s actually storming upward in a way I’d not anticipated. 33% of the way in, they should be sitting on only about 180-190, but they’re at 240. And the duplicate rate is pretty even across batches, now going between 4 and 7 per batch of 300.
Guessing Ammons is pointing at that to express why he’s not making a prediction one way or the other.
I can hopethat R-71 fails to get enough signatures. But, I still feel the judge will prevent the names of petition signers from being released if R-71 fails to get on the ballot. If R-71 makes it to the ballot, I don’t see how the Court can prevent the names from being released under Washington disclosure laws.
Ballot wins in Washington for R-17 and Maine for No on 1 would be huge victories for marriage equality.
typicalbait and switch language. . .decline to sign but then approve the measure by voting “no”. . .typical, sleazy political tacks.
Why Do We Keep Ignoring This American MADNESS?No one…NO ONE…should be allowed to vote to hurt another family by restricting and/or denying EQUAL PROTECTION under tha law. We have countless stories of people losing their HOME, CHILDREN, POSSESSIONS, or being separated from their SPOUSE, having to move out of the country, or disabled, etc., due to a lack of EQUAL PROTECTION. ”Legally” segregation from civil law.
NO ONE should be “allowed” to vote on another group’s DUE civil rights, family rights, children’s rights, HUMAN rights. It is esp. unconscionable that the group WITH these protections wants to deny other people the same protections. Why are the constitutional lawyers mute nationwide? They usually have so much to say!
We’ve been worn down to a nub from years and decades of a lifestyle of appeasement – it’s become a way of living.
We have every right to defend ourselves and fight back when government-enabled religious bullies traumatize and hurt our family at the ballot box! No one is protecting us: not the federal, state, or local government…not our own family and friends….not our “open and affirming” churches….NO ONE.
WHAT ELSE ARE WE TO DO, America?
I am with you Johnand have been preaching for months that we need to make denying us our rights so costly that the Right tires of paying the price, in inconvienience, disruption, –through protests.
We are, to put it simply, losing to the initiative of the religious right
Stop being so nice to these scumbagsI agree with you, John. This is the sort of thing I’ve been saying for a long time: We’re too nice to the religious right.
I’m tired of seeing all these blog posts and articles about how we should shake hands with the religious right and make friends.
The bottom line is, they don’t want to be our friends. They have no desire to treat us as equals or treat us with dignity. They hate us and won’t stop until we’re firmly back in the closet. The whole point of gay marriage bans is to disincentivize long-term same-sex relationships.
The religious right is our enemy, and we need to treat them as such. I’m not advocating preemptive violence, but when we run ads against them, we can’t be afraid to demonize them and smear them, just as they do to us. Call them bigots and theocrats without compunction. Make comparisons to the Nazis’ attempts to wipe us out. Connect their activism to our nearly 2,000-year history of oppression at the hands of the church.
I agree with MauraHennessey: Make it costly for the religious right to fight us. That’s what Gandhi and MLK Jr. did, and that’s why they won.
the r-71 campaigncertainly has used outright lies from the start to sell their referendum. they even printed lies right on the front of the petition sheets. however, just to be sure nobody gets blamed who doesn’t deserve it, the ballot language for all washington state referenda are formulated by the attorney general to ultimately ask the same question,
I only point this out here because elsewhere people are blaming the secretary of state or a.g. for what is on first blush confusing language. that is misplaced ire, since that part of the ballot language is the same regardless of bill under discussion.
here endeth the lesson.
Oh, yeah, I’ll certainly try…But she’ll probably yell at me! A bit wacky, that one!
It Seems That KIRO TV Loves HatersI guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but “media’s coverage” is always suspect on “hot button issues”.
Here in Seattle they put me on KIRO TV news regarding Referendum 71 and portrayed me as a gay terrorist, when I was merely advocating that we DEFEND ourselves from the religious terrorists and bullies. Seattle Weekly refered to me as advocating ANTI-ANTI-GAY violence (i.e. – self-defense)
http://www.kirotv.com/news/203…
The truth behind their hatchet-job on my blog here:
http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot….
Sorry for re-post, but……..Here in Seattle they put me on KIRO TV news regarding Referendum 71 and portrayed me as a gay terrorist, when I was merely advocating that we DEFEND ourselves from the religious terrorists and bullies. Seattle Weekly refered to me as advocating ANTI-ANTI-GAY violence (i.e. – self-defense)
http://www.kirotv.com/news/203…
The truth behind their hatchet-job on my blog here:
http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot….
From Seattle Weekly – “R-71 backers were asking that the donor lists be sealed to avoid harassment of donors–citing in particular the situation of Bellingham man John Bisceglia, who advocates anti-anti-gay violence”……..
ANTI-ANTI-GAY VIOLENCE?
You mean “pro-gay” violence?
OH! – You really mean SELF-DEFENSE!
Good news on Friday night!This has been as riveting and as nauseating as Florida 2000. Tonight, things actually look good. The error rate is 10.99% based on 58,000 checked.
Based on data prior to tonight, it looked like the error rate was creeping up, but that R71 would qualify by something like 200 signatures. In other words, while the error rate was increasing, we would not hit 12.4% by the time they checked the last name.
But the latest numbers show that the error rate has picked up. If the current trend holds, R71′s cumulative error rate will be about 13.4% by the time they finish – one percent higher than the allowable minimum.
This is without any relief from the current unfair practice by the Secretary of State of giving a double check to those names initially rejected by junior staff, but not double checking names initially accepted by junior staff. If we get any relief on that, it could only shift the tally further against R71.
All of this is razor thin and like Florida 2000, trends can reverse and reverse again. But tonight, it looks good. I hope this ruins Stickney’s weekend.
Unfortunately, not good enoughHave a look at a statistical analysis Darryl has done of the data over at Horsesass. His most recent update is here, but the conclusion is the same: Referendum 71 WILL be on the November ballot.
statisticsAll the analysis in the world can’t predict the outcome, especially if it comes from a blog called “Horsesass.” The only way we’ll know, ultimately, is when it’s over. I hope for the best, but we need to prepare for the possibility that this will end up on the ballot.
Wow, I had not seen that blog! Thanks for the link to HA. That is one impressive blog. I was totally unaware of it. It’s in my bookmark now.
Anyway, the analysis that Daryl did is far more sophisticated than my rudimentary projection above. And to top it off, Daryl has a background in statistical analysis. So I have no basis for challenging his conclusion.
But I do proffer two positive points:
One hope we have, which is not (and cannot) be reflected in Daryl’s analysis is that all of these error rates we have been dealing with – 10.6%, 10.99%, 11+% – are all well below the historical range of 15-18%. So we might hope that in the remaining 80,000 names there will be much higher error rates than have been seen heretofore. Daryl’s analysis assumes that errors other than duplication will remain stable. For all their sophistication, Daryl’s Monte Carlo analyses can’t account for differences in petition location and signature gatherers. If we hit a good patch with 18%, the Monte Carlo analyses will change. I note that on 8/6, when we thought the error rate was just over 13% – Daryl was ready to declare R71 dead.
The second positive point is that we have the master-checker issue. If R71 passes the mark by 1221 signatures, as Daryl predicts, that is less than 1% of the accepted signatures. If master checking has as much impact on the accepted sigs as it did on the rejected sigs, then that issue alone would be enough to tip the balance. Indeed, if it has just 1/3 of the impact on the accepted sigs as it did on the rejected sigs, it would alter the outcome.
If R71 is certified by a few hundred or even 1200 signatures, the issue certainly will be litigated and I cannot conceive of a court denying the relief of a double check, since the entire count could hinge on it and since the only reason for refusing to do it is marginal administrative cost.
You’re right about Darryl’s error assumptionsBut now that we’re almost 45% of the way through the stack, his assumptions are looking more and more reasonable. I agree that it isn’t over until it’s over, but I also think it unwise to hesitate whatsoever in all of us throwing our all unto preparing for the ballot. Did you realize that the ballots get mailed out in just a little over 60 days? So we don’t really have until Nov 3th to educate and convince people to vote APPROVED on Referendum 71, we only have until October 14th.
Well, today’s results seem to support Darryl’s Monte Carlo analysisThe deterioration of the error rate was just a few hundredths of a percentage point after an additional 7,000 signatures checked. Unless we hit some real dirty batches, or unless the accepted names can get master checked, then this thing is on.
If R71 does get on the ballot, I think it will be very interesting to see how the result compares with all the poll results that say that something like 75% of respondents support DP. I really and truly doubt that these polls are reliable.
I hope that the pro-equality side is well funded and organized. If they simply rely on those poll results and put in a minimal effort, they will be surprised and disappointed at the result.
I can assure youthat the pro-equality side is putting in maximal effort given the resources they have. They can’t do more than they can afford. so GIVE BIG, give often and give early to Washington Families Standing Together! WAFST.org
Ref-71 supporting obervers violating TRO?Lurleen,
Did you see the note on the top of Gary’s blog post today? By my understanding of the TRO and the rules for observers described on the Sec State’s blog, Valerie violated them by notifying Larry Stickney that his relative’s signature had been declared invalid for no registration. My understanding is that observers are only to note volume number and signature line when they have questions, NOT NAMES! I imagine Gary & co would throw a fit if an ERW oberver noticed a friend or family member’s signature being accepted when they knew for a fact that they would never sign Ref-71 and notified them.
The other thing that concerns me is that Gary, Larry & co are now apparently pushing for the Sec State’s office to generate a newer voter registration DB. Given what Gary openly admits to on his blog, how are we know that they have not been noting names (or even just volume & sig line #’s & then getting names from copies made before submission) and then contacting those rejected for not being registered and getting them registered?
hmmm…i think that the petition backers can still have full access to the names on their petitions, but it’s a good question and i’ll pass it along.
as for your second point, neither side has enough observers present to be able to see every signature that is checked by every checker. further, i don’t believe that the secretary of state accepts as valid a signature from someone not registered by the time the petitions were submitted. however, if you’re concerned about this, it sounds like a question best posed to the secretary of state on their blog.
I liked the videowhat does it take to get something like that on TV?
$$$DONATE
that’s trueBut since any rejected signature gets double-checked by a master checker, they need only monitor the master checkers.
Dear LurleenI really appreciate the updates. . .perhaps it’s time to compress the thread?
Don’t hit me.
you mean all the extra stuff after the fold?yeah, i was thinking the same thing. i’ll try to neaten things up when i re-post later today. this is what happens when you recycle posts – they start to look an awful lot like my desk!
I feel like during the last election cycleand maybe even with prop 8 specifically campaigns were giving people the option to do targeted donations towards getting a certain ad on the air or on tv. For most of the funds they asked for general donations b/c they knew the best ways to spend the money appropriately, but as a motivator they would do a few tv ads that you could donate directly towards. I wonder if something like that would be viable in this case with the ad on a website & a thermometer beside of it that fills up as donations come in, with the stipulation that if the goal isn’t met by a certain time frame the money is freed up for other uses.
that’s a good ideayou could suggest it to wafst.org
Suggested!n/t
“Coming out of the woodwork”?Where have you been for the past 40 years? Its the same old soap opera in a new season. The difference being that for the first time “the crazies” now realize the change is real. And this time it won’t be enough to shout down the rhetoric or show forth the truth. People are afraid of a future that doesn’t include them or their values and we as community should come to understand that and provide the vision needed to show that our future can include us all. Yes, even the fundies.
Major drama in today’s numbersLurleen, this thread is getting too old and too long. Why not start a new one?
Anyway, the deterioration continues at .3% per another 8,000 signatures. But as noted above, the R71 proponents have gotten the Secretary to agree to yet ANOTHER check on a live database, which will result in the resurrection of about 12% of one major category of rejected names. This really means that, notwithstanding the results reported above, the true current error rate is either 11.01% or 11.23%, depending upon what has already been factored into today’s results. If it continues to deteriorate at .3% per 8,000 signatures, it should just narrowly fail. But it is obviously a lot closer with the shifting of these names into the accepted pile.
The other big news is that a check of the a group of accepted names indicated that anywhere from 7% to 15% should have been rejected. That may not play out over the entire body of names, but it is still a shocking result. If R71 qualifies, we absolutely must demand a full master check of all accepted sigs.
We are clearly getting screwed over here. The rejected names get lavish attention and multiple checks – sometimes as many as 4 reviews. The accepted names get 1 review by a junior staff person and then get counted. This is total BS. From the Secretary’s report today, it sure doesn’t seem like the pro-equality reps are being aggressive about this. Why are they not demanding a master check of all accepted signatures? Didn’t they learn from FL 2000 that the successful side is the one that is aggressive in identifying specific process problems and demanding solutions?
Un-EFFING-believable How many effing times are the goal posts going to be moved?
My question on the R-71 blog (from the SoS) is basically, are they checking dates when comparing those signatures that were “not found” before.
Meaning if the person signed the petition on June 1st, but registered after (take July 1st for example) will their signature still count? My personal opinion is that they shouldn’t since they were not registered (nor had they tried to register) at the time they signed the petition.
I wonder what it’ll be next…After master checking, they’ll probably have a super checker, followed by a resurrection checker. Then they’ll call the rejected people specifically and get them signed up for voter registration, and check them all over again…
“it sure doesn’t seem like the pro-equality reps are being aggressive about this”appearances aren’t everything.
as for the thread getting long, just search on “[new]” to bring you to the most recent comments.
Well, this is how the SoS described our side’s lame-ass approach“I asked Ms. Smith if she had any concerns about the signature verification process or checkers, including the master checkers. She offered careful, light praise of the process and stated that several of the checkers appeared to be moving quickly. When I explored this concern with her a bit more, she mentioned Marc Pharris as an example of someone moving quickly. Ms. Smith also mentioned concerns that accepted signatures were not getting a second review. During this conversation she asked if we would consider reviewing all or many of the accepted signatures.”
– So basically, while the other side is complaining proactively and aggressively about every detail, the Secretary’s office had to approach our rep in order to solicit her opinion. The passive Ms. Smith then offers “light praise” even while the process is screwing over her side badly. Only at the end of this exchange does she ask if the SoS “would consider reviewing all or many of the accepted signatures.”
WTF? She should be demanding equal treatment and making clear that this discrepancy in treatment is impacting the outcome. Two times we neared the threshold of 12.4%, only to be put back by some special concession to the other side. The SOS has confirmed that many of these rejected sigs are getting 1 check and 3 master checks. We get 1 junior check. No wonder the goal posts keep moving back.
Our side certainly seems to be playing Al Gore to the other side’s George W. Bush. Obviously, we can always sue about this later, but it is much better to get the count right the first time. We should call WA Families Standing Together and tell them to get their act together.
Confirmed that the likely “real” error rate is 11.01%The Secretary’s THIRD review of the rejected signatures is expected to yield a total shift of 937 signatures from rejected to accepted. That is an estimate; 285 shifts are confirmed so far. None of these shifts are reflected in today’s totals.
Assuming that it bears out that 937 sigs are shifted, the “real” error rate as of today is 11.01%. We are back to where we were on Monday.
As noted above, if we can sustain an error rate of even .25% (less than the average for the past week) for every 8,000 sigs checked, we will still prevail by 1/10 of a percentage point. If we can do a little better, like the recent .3%/8,000 rate, then we’ll clear the goal line by about .45%. We can still win, even with all the manifest unfairness with the master checking, but any comfort zone that we might have enjoyed is gone. One day of really clean signatures, as happened on Monday, can kill us.
ever heard the old kenny rogers song?
i understand this is nervous-making, because all the power is in other peoples hands. but don’t let nerves lead you to second-guess our side. i personally have zero reason to doubt our team, and every reason to trust their judgment. as for the other side, the opposite is true, as they’ve demonstrated in their ham-handed dealings and public attacks on the secretary of state and the elections division. i’m guessing that right about now the r-71 people are wishing their leaders had been able to keep a poker face to match wafst’s.
there was a comfort zone?damn! i missed it! ;D
If you say so, LurleenI assume you know these people personally. Maybe you even know the “Ms. Smith” referenced in the SoS’s memo. So you are in a better position to judge than I.
But you don’t exactly have a lot of specifics when it comes to defending their heretofore passive approach to this fight. I mean, do you know from speaking with them that they have grasped the importance of the master checker issue? Are they prepared to litigate this on extremely short notice if need be? They should be drafting their application for injunctive relief now. Why do I have the feeling that that is not happening?
Sorry for doubting, but people said that we should all just trust the professionals in CA and not worry. Later, we found out that these professionals were to marriage equality what Michael Brown was to FEMA. Not saying that is the case here, but after CA, I am reluctant to place blind trust in our leaders.
Well – I meant that before today, if you projected the error trend out to the end, we would have come out comfortably in the mid 13% range. Even Darryl at Horse’s Ass updated his Monte Carlo analysis to reflect that the landscape was improving dramatically.
But now, we are set back. If we win, assuming present trends continue, it will be by a a few hundred sigs. It really is Florida 2000.
Just keep in mindthat key leaders in our campaign are lawyers and long-experienced civil rights advocates. I can’t guarantee that they will do what you or I, from out limited point of view, might think they should do. But I am confident that they have a full grasp of the situation and are looking 10 steps into the future and planning accordingly. None of them are new to civil rights chess.
It’s hard to trust people you don’t know, there is no doubt about it. It’s always a risk. But ERW and the other organizations that comprise WAFST have a great track record. If we tear them down based on nothing more than fear, we are left with nothing. Absolutely nothing. And then the haters will win.
I don’t know what your situation is, but in my mind the best way to relieve anxiety about an organization is to get active within it and check it out for yourself. If you can swing a volunteer shift, it would give you an opportunity to see first-hand what’s happening, talk to people, etc. And of course get some work done for the cause. If you’re able, you might consider it.
Lurleen,You know this so damn frustrating. Since they started this process (July 31) things get fishier and fishier. I know I know, they are being as “transparent” as they can, but this checking a signature 3 and 4 times? Really? I would REALLY like to know if they are checking the registration dates v signature date because if they are accepting those signatures that were submitted before they registered then the “Approve 71″ has a very good case in the courts. I have yet to receive a response and most likely won’t until tomorrow (if I get one at all.)
Another poster of there made an excellent point. When someone votes they are required to be registered at least one week before the election. Meaning they can’t vote and then register. This rule should apply when signing petitions.
yes, there seem to bemany avenues to pursue if we should go to court. hopefully we won’t need to.
as for rules that should apply, the distance between should and do is sometimes, sadly, very great. but we have the laws that we have, and all we can do is work within them for now. such is life…
I know…….…….it’s just BS that the goal posts have moved how many times now? It’s to the point that I’m beginning to wonder how many more times they’ll be moved.
Oh……and it begs the question, WHY aren’t the “junior” checkers using the live database?
yeah i know.the good thing though is that they’re doing this in the full light of day. it’s an emotional roller coaster, but it beats sitting around for a month have no clue as to what’s going on. i think this transparency is really a very, very good thing. the sec’y of state should be commended for being willing to make their mistakes in public. it can’t be a comfortable thing.
my impression isthat they are now using the updates database, but that somebody had to go back and re-check the signatures they had rejected from when they were using the old database. but you can ask that on the sos blog to be certain, if you’re curious.
I just updated the numbersBased on the current trend, assuming that it is influenced by increasing duplicates at a reasonably consistent rate as the total count increases the petition will fail by several thousand signatures.
Where is Nate Silver when you need him?
Anyway, I will re-check and try to post more detail at Tips-Q tomorrow night.
I agreeAt the very least, no signature of someone, who registered after July 25, should be considered valid. Doesn’t it state right on the petition that the signer is declaring that they ARE a registered voter?
correctionmy impression above may have been wrong, according to this comment on the sec’y state’s blog
this implies to me that the initial checks are still being done on the old database, but i’m not entirely sure.
in fact it does.i happen to have a blank petition right here on my desk. above the area where you can sign, there is a box stating the following
and as if that were not enough, the line of text directly over the signature area reads
both of these statements indicate to me that if you are not already registered to vote when you sign the petition, you are ineligible to sign. however, i think that the state allows people to count themselves as registered voters if they fill out a voter registration card on the same day that they sign.
That’s why this final check against a “Live” voter registration db concerns meIf the date on the registration isn’t being taken into account when checking against the live DB, it seems entirely possible for the person to have registered after the petitions were handed in. For example, maybe Larry Stickney’s relative had filled out the registration form, but failed to hand it in until Valerie violated the TRO and informed Larry his relative wasn’t registered. Do we know whether or not the petition sheets were individually numbered by the backers before submission? If so this would allow them to easily monitor the master checkers and note the petition number and line of signatures rejected for registration and then get some of those people registered (I dunno say 12%?).
It seems to me like the way this is playing out (backers have access to the petitions, opponents don’t, rejected signatures are checked up to 3 times, but accepted only once) gives a hugh advantage and preference to the backers.
This is effin’ B*LLSH*T!!!!!!!!!!The reply to the question as to whether or not the person had to be registered before or at the very least register the day of signing the petition?
Here it is:
Are you effing kidding me? They don’t have dates on the petitions there in Washington? Seriously?
In effect, what they have stated here is that someone could have signed the petition on June 30th, and then register to vote TODAY and provided they have been entered into the system before they are checked, that signature counts.
I’d be surprisedif the voter registration database doesn’t record the date that a voter’s registration was received and/or recorded, since my voter ID card has a registration date printed right on it. It would seem fair to me to consider all those dated on or before the day the petitions were due as valid for that petition. Unfortunately I don’t know data fields are in the voter registration database the signature checkers use, nor do I know the law or judicial decisions regarding these issues. So, I don’t know if what I think of as fair is reflected in the law. It would seem absurd, for example, that if the signature-checking period got extended another month that any petition signer who registered to vote today, 3 weeks after the petition deadline, could be considered a valid signer. There must be outer limits to what the Sec’y State will allow.
One thing is for sure – this continues to be a very interesting precess. Today’s numbers should be out soon, and I see on the SOS blog that they will reflect the Rejects that were “re-re-rechecked” against the most up-to-date voter registration database.
I think you’ll like thisWashington Families Standing Together is on the ball. Check out this document just posted to the Secretary of State’s Referendum 71 Info page.
Is our side good, or what?
The letter was from Anne Levinson, Chair of Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST.org).
This is good. Latest numbers are probably very good.I have been waiting to see lawyer-like correspondence from our camp, and it is good to see it flowing.
The latest tally has an error rate of 11.68%. If – and this is unclear – but if that includes all of the live database shifts, then that means that the error rate is exploding.
The live database shifts put us back to a likely error rate of 11.01%. If we then moved up to 11.68% based on another 9,000 signatures checked, that means the real increase was .57%. That is huge. It is nearly double what it had been earlier this week. So even though the numbers appear a little worse today than yesterday (because of the one-time live database shifts), the reality is that this thing cannot survive with that kind of error rate increase.
The one big question is whether today’s results include all of the live database shifts. My strong suspicion is that they do include these shifts, because the error rate has never gone down on any day in the whole process, except when a “re-check” modification was thrown into the results. So I think we are looking at real numbers, and an error rate increase of .57%. If that holds up, we will cross the 12.4% mark by Tuesday.
That sounds good,but I sure hope they are keeping track of those that have been rechecked and rechecked and rechecked into the accepted pile so that it can be verified as to whether or not they were “registered” when they signed the petition.
I guess I am getting lost in translation hereBut how can we now request a copy of the signature listing and the date they show as actually being registered to legally sign the referendum if the other side has already been to court to get a judgment against the state of Washington’s current law of openness and to keep the list from being published? Doesn’t this mean that the approve ref. 71 lawyers would actually need to go to court to have the original stay (which violates Washington law) thrown out?
the SoS blog says that today only includes 160 volumesSo with 160 is less than half have been rechecked.
OK, further update -Bad newsIt appears that about half of the shifts are reflected in today’s numbers. So by my rough calculation, that means that the “real” increase in the error rate was about .18%, which is a very good day for the other side.
That is not enough to win. If that carries through, R71 will qualify by about .4%. At that point, there will have been 120,577 signatures that were deemed accepted by temp workers, while the rejects would have been checked 3, 4 or even 5 times.
the restraining order was only temporaryand will be reassessed sept 3rd at a hearing.
i should point outthat in the letter above, anne levinson isn’t asking for the identity of the signers, just for a way to identify how many fell into the categories she outlined. signers would be identified by where their signature fell in the body of petitions, not by name.
It will make the ballotand we have an uphill battle for several reasons:
1. Our enemies will argue that it’s too expensive for the state during a time of deep recession. They will argue that schools, courts, etc will need to be cut to make room for domestic partner pension benefits. The financial provisions actually don’t take effect until 2014 – something the voters need to know. Unfortunately we lost our chance to try to get that written into the ballot title. My pleas fell upon deaf ears.
2. I see quite a few unions, liberal churches, non-profits,and newspapers lining up to support the Yes campaign. What’s missing is the business community. Nothing but silence from Microsoft and other major employers in the area. Also silence from business leaders like Gates, Shultz, Allen, etc. Those who recall the struggle to pass the anti-discrimination law may recall that Microsoft was silent in 2005, and it failed in the Senate by one vote. The following year, Microsoft lent its support and the swing vote Republican in whose district Microsoft sat changed his mind and voted yes and the law passed. Don’t tell me support from the business community makes no difference.
3. This is an off-year election. Historically the liberal vote tends to be low. The conservative vote is typically higher, particularly if guns or taxes are on the menu. This year, Tim Eyman’s I-1033, a tax measure, will be on the ballot. A massive get-out-the-vote campaign will be needed.
4. The enemy will use dirty ads on TV and radio. We will need to respond quickly – within 24-48 hours – in order to effectively rebut their ads to keep their message from sinking in. And we should not be afraid to use attack ads of our own. At this point, we have nothing to lose by playing nice. We are on the wrong end of the curve. We know (thanks to Karl Rove) that negative ads and quick counter-attacks can work. Remember when Nethercutt ran against Sen. Patty Murray? Every time Nethercutt came out with an attack ad, Murray’s quick response team responded with a rebuttal – and attack of their own – in 24-48 hours. Does the “Yes” campaign have the organization and fortitude to do this? I don’t know. If their attacks are allowed to go unanswered, or if we worry too much about playing nice, then our loss is assured.
5. I think fundraising for the “Yes” campaign may have been affected over questions (and dissent) within the community over how to respond to the enemy’s signature-gathering campaign. Many of my LGBT friends, acquaintances, coworkers, etc (many are attorneys, paralegals and investigators) are simply ignoring the issue rather than paying attention to news. It’s like they’re sitting this one out rather than contributing and/or volunteering. Among some the people I know is a perception amongst some that the referendum was allowed to make the ballot without any meaningful opposition.
The stakes are high. Will the Legislature want to touch this issue again after being slapped down by the voters? We would be lucky to get a few small incremental scraps before the window of opportunity closes. Our next governor will likely be Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna. He won reelection with 59% of the vote. As of yet no democrat of similar stature who looks like an equal to him for the 2012 election. Unless he screws up he can get elected to a second term. Then we are looking 2021 for the next opportunity – and that’s IF his successor is a democrat and IF the dems still control both houses of our Legislature. Think I’m overly pessimistic? It took nine years for the Legislature to pass the antidiscrimination law after it was rejected by the voters in 1997.
Those of you who think I’m being overly pessimistic – pass me some of what you’re smoking. It must be good stuff and I could use something that’ll make me feel good because I feel quite bummed about this whole mess right now.