Washington’s statewide domestic partnership law is at risk and we need your help to save it. A ballot measure attempting to repeal the domestic partnership law is on the November 3 ballot. We have 6 weeks before ballots are sent to voters. Six weeks to be sure voters know to vote “APPROVED” on Referendum 71 to preserve the domestic partnership law.
Gary Randall, head of Faith and Freedom Political Action Committee and close collaborator of Protect Marriage Washington’s Larry Stickney, is apparently afraid of a well-informed Washington electorate. He says he’s hoping that some voters go to the polls confused. In fact, it appears that he’s relying on it:
Randall said confusion on just one side could be beneficial.“I’m hoping that everyone understands on our side that they’re to vote “reject,” and everyone on the other side thinks they’re rejecting Referendum 71, so then we win,” he said.
This is a strange admission from a member of the Christian clergy. But Randall’s apparent hypocrisy is not what’s important here. What’s important is Randall’s strategy in light of recent polls and the double-edged sword they represent.A majority of Washington voters have consistently voiced their support for full domestic partnerships or marriage equality. The latest Washington Poll, conducted in 2008, reports that about 29% and 37% of voters support full domestic partnerships or marriage equality, respectively. Taken together, this indicates that a comfortable majority of voters, 66%, support what the new domestic partnership bill provides. But! if Gary Randall is successful in convincing much of that 29% who support full domestic partnerships only that the referendum is about marriage and not domestic partnerships, we lose.
Add to this concern the Bradley effect, where aspirational polls like the UW poll often overestimate support for minority candidates and ballot issues, and one can only conclude that we need a very strong media presence to educate the public about Referendum 71.
Randall and his cohort will undoubtedly attempt to confuse the public through some combination of expensive media ads, robo calls and mailers. We already know from Randall & Stickney’s campaign rhetoric and the Referendum 71 petition itself that the anti-domestic partnership crowd is not shy about using apparent falsehoods, hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims. We absolutely must get our truthful message out clearly and forcefully, and we need your help to do it.
Please DONATE to Washington Families Standing together.
Voters will be asked to approve or reject the domestic partnership law. Vote APPROVED on Referendum 71 to preserve the domestic partnership law.



27 Comments





If he’s hoping for confusion…then what is the language on the ballot? Do we know yet?
Is it that complicated? We already know that prop 8 confused some and led to incorrect voting.
the ballot language is very clearin my opinion, the ballot language is very and actually intuitive, if you know how referendum ballot language works in Washington. the thing is to be sure that people read the ballot language before marking their ballots with the assumption that they already know how to vote. this is from my recent diary on the subject:
The ballot language itself works on a similar principle, so a great way to dispel lingering uncertainty is to familiarize folks with how referendum ballot language works. All referenda in Washington state are worded in the same way, Referendum 71 included. A referendum asks voters to reject or approve a law that was recently passed by the legislature. Thus, Referendum 71 asks voters to reject or approve the domestic partnership law passed this spring by the legislature and signed by the Governor. Here is what the Referendum 71 ballot language looks like:
Knowing now as you do how ballot language works, and keeping in mind that you support domestic partnerships and approve of the new law, it’s a no-brainer to remember, when your ballot arrives in the mail, to Vote APPROVED on Ref. 71 to preserve the domestic partnership law.
If you are registered to vote but miss the deadline to update your address, you can still vote. Contact your County Elections Office where you are currently registered in order to obtain a ballot.
Washington Voter Registration Information
Please make sure you are registered to vote! If you have previously registered to vote in Washington, please check to be sure that your voter registration status is active and your address is current.
Since voters in every county except Pierce Co. will get their ballots by mail, it is vital that your address is current in the voter database.
What to do
If you have previously registered to vote in Washington, but have moved…
…within your county, you’ll need to update your address.
…to another county, you’ll need to re-register.
If you have never registered to vote in Washington you’ll need to…
…complete the registration online, or
…register in person (at your county’s elections office) or mail in a paper registration form.
Deadlines
You have until Monday, October 5, 2009 to update your information online or get your paper registration form post marked. If you are registering for the first time in Washington, you have until Monday, October 26, 2009 to register in person at your county’s elections office. (But you won’t let it slide that long, right?)
Questions?
Below are ways to contact your county’s elections office.
Larger counties
Clark: 360-397-2345
King: 206-296-VOTE
Kitsap: 360-337-7128
Pierce: 253-798-7427
Snohomish: 425-388-3444
Spokane: 509-477-2320
Thurston: 360-786-5408
All counties
Full list of county elections officials
Check this one outfrom the right wing Snohomish County Newspaper this morning:
http://www.heraldnet.com/artic…
Thanks for that info LurleenYou are the go-to-spokesperson for Ref 71.
If these groups are hoping for mistakes to help their cause, it sure shows how much they believe in their campaign.
it is sad that the other side is relying on deception.it is very telling. but deception can work, so this is why we need to raise funds now.
a very good article i think.i’m not surprised they features stickney at the outset, since he’s both a local and the head of the domestic partnership rejectionists. but i thought the article did a great job telling both sides of the story.
i was particularly happy to read Rep Liias’ comments about how he’s putting his boots on the ground for us. I’m also glad the article ended with his words “The only reason it’s going to fail is if we don’t work hard enough.”. If we don’t get out there and pound the pavement along with Rep Liias or donate money or talk to our friends about voting APPROVED, the fault of any loss lies with us.
What percentage of voters need to approve it?Sorry, if you’ve said before, I don’t remember. Does it just have to be over 50%?
We must be vigilant of the news tickers in local news broadcastsThis morning, KING-5 had a ticker item about the Thurston County judge hearing the challenge to the signatures. KING-5 was characterising Referendum 71 as asking voters to overturn the “everything but marriage” law.
I called the station and send an email asking why they were flat-out lying about R-71. I reminded them that the law was not in effect, so there was nothing to overturn. I also reminded them that a Yes vote is to implement the law, so the correct phrasing would be that the measure is asking voters to APPROVE the law.
I have not yet heard back, nor have I seen any kind of correction or retraction. This kind of misrepresentation could cause a lot of equality supporters into voting no.
All we need is a simple majority, and the measure passes. n/t
Thanks!That makes me very hopeful for my friends in Washington.
thanks!yes, we need to keep track of what’s being said in the media and how it’s being said. don’t hesitate to comment on online news stories either.
i agree that it is only fair to describe Referendum 71 as “giving voters the opportunity to APPROVE the domestic partnership law.”
be sure that you knowbe sure that you know that your friends know that to preserve the DP law, they must vote “APPROVED” on Referendum 71. And give them a call any time after Oct 16th, when the ballots get mailed out, and be sure they’ve marked and mailed their ballots. Every vote counts, especially votes of friends of JosephineTx.
Media = Part of the problem.
Along with their subtle and not-so-much bias in “reporting”, they pretty much ignore our entire community unless our rights are being voted on.
my impression as well. . .The author was balanced . . .front page in the print edition of what is an extremely conservative/christian owned and operated daily. Not a baby step but a big shift.
It’s not an expose on the deceptions or bait/switch tactics, but even a year ago this publication would have rejected the article outright . . .instead put Stickney on the front page as a hero who needs a volunteer carpenter to fix a broken dining table.
Looking at one of your posts above gave me a better response to media biasThe ballot measure asks voters to approve or not approve. The word “overturn” appears nowhere at all, and it is biased for them to make such a claim.
I say we hold lying media to the fire: if they refuse to present the information accurately, we threaten (and follow through, if necessary) to drag them before the Public Disclosure Commission for not reporting their in-kind donations to the referendum sponsors.
This is exactlythe confusion they are banking on. . .when the major new affiliates can’t even get it correct.
news
no threatsno, with all due respect i think we need to engage in reasoned discussions. the media is not our enemy. people in the media face the same deadlines and time crunches as anyone else. it would be great if they could be 100% informed on every subject, but that’s just not possible, especially now with very little money to operate on. a respectful tap on the shoulder presenting useful information or different viewpoint has a chance at success. threats do not.
Media = part of the solutionIf you want the media to be part of the solution, then you need to work with them respectfully and professionally. ”The Media”, after all, is made up of real people. I would very much like to see the papers delve into the ugliness of the motivations behind the referendum, as we have here on the Blend and also The Stranger has, but they will not be so inclined to give us a second thought if we brand them “problem”. If you will take a moment, the Washington state print media has been almost across the board in support of full domestic partnerships and even marriage equality. For a refresher, check out the diary called Washington Newspapers: Domestic Partnerships Good, Ref 71 Bad
important note!Of course, the title of “Washington Newspapers: Domestic Partnerships Good, Ref 71 Bad” was written from the point of view of opposing R-71 getting on the ballot in the first place. Now that it is on the ballot, Ref 71 is not good or bad, it simply is. R-71 asks voters to APPROVE the domestic partnership law.
The media is not our enemy, but the bigots who run some of the media areAnd when they use their media resources to spread lies and influence elections, it is vitally important that we use what resource we have at our disposal to fight them.
The Belo Corporation is the owner of KING-5 and KONG-16 (insert obligatory eye-roll here) in Seattle, KREM-2 in Spokane, KGW in Portland (which covers southwest Washington) and Northwest Cable News. They are based in Texas and are pretty conservative in the slant they give to most social issues. This bias is frequently seen on their stations, and we must not become complacent.
Thanksfor posting the link to online voter registration. I’ve bookmarked it since I’m going to be turning 18 come October 6th and registering is the first thing I’ll do!
Yes & NoI think gays have treated the media pretty well for the past 30 years (I’m only 44 – my frame of reference), but I can’t say that we’ve received the same treatment. We’re pretty much invisible in the visual media.
But I get your points, and I’m too familiar with the “support” we get. I’m just at the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to fighting for our rights, since the ways we’ve been fighting (for years) has led us to this sickness of donating money to buy approval, and having our rights up for a public vote – with NO ONE stepping in to say this is highly immoral and UN-American.
excellent!and happy birthday minus a month.
I think it’s fairto recognize the potential conflict of interest in some media companies, but I’m also certain that it is unfair to lump all media together as “The Media”. That’s as absurd as talking about “Teh Gayz”. So I’m glad you narrowed the focus of your comment a bit.
This comment comes in late.But, I think it’s important to point out that many years ago, when media wouldn’t cover the issue of AIDS other than to make references to the “gay plague”, KING was the only NW media to take a comprehensive approach to it’s coverage. KING took risks & sponsored our AIDS WALK when nobody else would even touch it. And although Jean Enerson (local anchor) gets a lot of flack these days for her tenure/age at the station . . .she showed up, held hands and was an integral part of dispelling paranoia for our community on air.
I don’t think it’s completely fair to lump this into the “conservative media hate file”. . .KING has been a balanced friend despite Belo Corp ownership. That said, it’s important for us to make sure that our media parses the words correctly and this will be a difficult task since we’ve been fighting AGAINST R-71 getting on the ballot, and now we have to switch gears and get it APPROVED.
I don’t think this is a particular media bias, I think this is vernacular brain freeze. This is exactly the confusion Stickney/Randall hope for & why we need to be vigilant in educating our friends, families, neighbors and local media.
Belo aquired KING in 1997As part of King Broadcasting, KING and the other stations owned by the corporation were progressive, innovative and deeply committed to Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. It was sold along with other King properties to the Providence Journal Company in 1992, which was gobbled up by Belo in 1997.
Once Belo was in control, the wildly popular show “Almost Live” (a Seattle version of Saturday Night Live) was cancelled and a lot of other local programming was changed or cancelled. The editorials of the network, their choice of stories and the slant they put on those stories became decidedly conservative.
The KING-5 of today is most definitely not the KING-5 of the 1980s.