Tweet
Ballots for Washington’s November 3rd general election get mailed to voters in 6 weeks. After reading the latest installment of the Referendum 71 saga, I think you’ll agree that we need to press full steam ahead preparing voters to APPROVE Referendum 71.
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee ruled Tuesday that signatures on referendum petitions were valid even if the person who signed was not a registered voter at the time of signing, and even if the petition circulator broke the law. He therefore refused to enjoin the certification of Referendum 71 for the ballot.
A transcript of the KOMO News video is at the bottom of the post.
The state constitution clearly requires referendum petition signers to be registered voters (Art 2 Sec 1A). Judge McPhee’s ruling is interesting, to put it mildly. And petition circulators can break the law without it affecting the validity of their petitions? Sounds like it’s a wild west free-for-all here in Washington state. With such a curious take on the referendum process, it’s no wonder Judge McPhee ruled against Washington Families Standing Together.
But the story doesn’t end there. Last week, the Secretary of State (SOS) rushed to certify the referendum before Judge Julie Spector of the King County Superior Court could post her ruling on the first round of this lawsuit. She had pre-announced when she would be issuing her ruling. The SOS preempted her by about 5 minutes, announcing that Referendum 71 had qualified for the ballot with 122,007 signatures, 1,430 more than required. Why the rush to beat Judge Spector to the punch?
And now, after saying that their signature checking process was so thorough and so above reproach that they refused to take a second look at signatures that WAFST volunteers observed to have been wrongfully accepted (the count is in the thousands), the SOS quietly revised their “certified” number of signatures. The following showed up on the SOS blog Tuesday, posted 5:53 pm:
The Elections Division released a final signature count that subtracted 227 signatures from the accepted pile. The new number is 121,780, about 1,200 more than the bare number needed to qualify for the ballot. The challengers had asked for a list of all the accepted signatures, and in compiling that for release, the Elections Division did a new hand count. The discrepancy was due to an accumulation of a number of small math errors.
So the SOS rushed to certify the referendum prior to Judge Spector’s ruling, then had to go back and fix their mistakes. Makes you wonder what other mistakes await fixing.
Tuesday’s fix was so stealthy that the SOS failed to mention it in court, leaving Judge McPhee to (mis)state in his findings of fact an outdated total of 122,007 signatures certified by the SOS. Hello, Transparency, are you out there?! As Joe Mirabella over at Examiner says, “The Secretary of State has yet to explain the adjustment or why it was done after the legally binding certification. The move will undoubtedly cast further suspicion on the process.”
Transcript of the KOMO News videoDan Lewis: Another judge rejects efforts to block a statewide vote on the “everything but marriage” law.
Mary Nam: That means unless the Supreme Court steps in, the domestic partnership rights law will be on the November ballot. As KOMO 4′s Brian Johnson reports, today’s ruling sets the scene for a heated political battle.
Voice of Bryan Johnson: 122,000 signed Referendum 71 to force a vote on our state’s “everything but marriage” law. Now there are some convinced there weren’t enough signatures. They tried to convince a judge today. The argument: the back of this referendum, and anti-fraud declaration wasn’t signed. The judges ruled it doesn’t have to be. He also said even if collectors violated the law, voters must be protected.
Judge Thomas McPhee: When a legal voter has signed a referendum petition, his signature must be counted even though the person soliciting his signature has violated the law.
Voice of Bryan Johnson: Those fighting the “everything but marriage law” call this a victory.
Stephen Pidgeon: As John Paul Jones once said, we have not yet begun to fight. This is going – the beauty of this particular hearing today it it allows this case to be heard on the merits in front of the general public. This is a great celebration for democracy in the state of Washington.
Voice of Bryan Johnson: Supporters of the domestic partnership law say they’re ready to fight.
Anne Levinson: We are puzzled by behavior of those who want to overturn the law. We don’t understand why it is that they think that families that look different than theirs don’t deserve the same rights and protections their families deserve.
Voice of Bryan Johnson: Secretary of State Sam Reed is pleased his placing the measure on the ballot has been upheld. He knows the decision may not be final, but he’s made the decision.
Same Reed: …ah to go ahead and put it on the ballot, even if later on they decide it shouldn’t be, and then we just wouldn’t count it.
Bryan Johnson: The battle is not yet over. It’s possible today’s decision would be appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court. In Olympia, Bryan Johson, KOMO 4 News.
Mary Nam: Judge McPhee still has several issues to rule on. When he makes a final decision, the Washington Families group will have 5 day to decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.
12 Comments
Okay, now can I be cynical??Cue the authoritative politician who will step out and deplore the various issues that have crossed the table on both sides who will apologize to the people, while at the same time insisting that what is done is done and that we must continue to move forward and finish the election process…regardless of how unfair it is to us. What we call Just-us rather than Justice when I was a young black man.
Worse will come when…Ed Murray, Jamie Pedersen, Marko Liias, Joe McDermott and Jim Moeller start clutching their pearls while refusing to do squat because they want to be legislators who happen to be gay, not gay legislators. Advocating in favor of the state constitution would, you know, make them appear to be biased in favor of their “special interest group” and we can’t have any of that in politics.
And I really don’t think I’m being cynical here, that’s the pity.
what kind of authoritywhat kind of authority do you think state legislators have over the policies of the elections office in this situation? the legislature isn’t even in session. have you spoken with any state legislators about this? what are you proposing they do exactly, and what part of that have they refused to do any why? or is this just idle crabbing?
the people we need to focus on right now sit in the sec’y of state’s office.
I’ve been a staunch supporter of Reed’s officeThroughout the entire signature verification process I’ve strongly supported Reed and the openness of his office during the verification process. But news about the rush to certify the referendum followed by the revision of numbers is disturbing and seriously shakes my confidence in the Secretary of State’s impartiality.
I hope this case moves quickly to the State Supreme Court so we can clear up the variety of issues related to what signatures will be accepted and whether the requirements for signature gatherers have any meaning at all. This is a mess that requires both the court and the legislature to clean up.
The referendum processThe referendum process doesn’t beg for reform; it begs for elimination. The only reason why these processes exist in a tiny handful of states is that about 100 years ago, some misguided Populists thought that the unwashed masses could always be trusted to do the right thing. They never foresaw the day when the process would be abused by the other side for the purpose of majoritarian tyranny.
Cynical as this may sound, the general public is too stupid to be trusted to vote rationally or on the basis of facts and logic. Most voters will mindlessly check whichever box “feels right” and/or are easily swayed by dishonest political ads that yank their emotional heartstrings.
They could have a lot of influence, if they’ve the courageEd Murray was a member of the state House in 2005, when the “statement by the circulator” requirement was passed; a statement on the intent of that requirement would carry considerable weight. And as state lawmakers, they are certainly qualified to comment on state law whether or not the Legislature is in session.
If they — if ANY Democratic legislator — were to speak about the purpose of the petition statement, the Constitutional requirement that only registered voters may sign these petitions and the irregular and clearly over-hasty certification by the Secretary of State, then it would help bring these issues to the public’s attention and focus more media attention where it belongs: on the Secretary of State.
But I am very doubtful that any Democratic legislator will have the courage to appear “partisan” and I have little doubt that our openly gay legislators will do anything more than remain silent.
Which is why the Founding Fathers created a *Republic*…… and not a democracy.
Which is also why we have a bicameral legislature, where the House is based off of population and the Senate has two members for each state, regardless of size.
Which is also why we have the electoral college, even though many posters here have called for its elimination.
Which is also why federal Supreme Court justices are appointed, rather than elected. (Although I’m in favor of an 18-year limit on service with a constant revolution of judges so that every President gets a minimum number of Supremes to appoint, but that’s another discussion.)
Point is, the general public is stupid, and the Founding Fathers knew that and built in protections for our own good.
The referendum process is too easily abused. Here in CA, it’s a disaster, and gives legislators an excuse to not govern. CA is in a mess for many reasons, and one of them is this systemic referendum process issue.
Any organized SIT-INS planned at the Secretary of State’s office?…because everything else we’ve done so far seems to be “playing the game” as the oppressors want us to play the game, even though the “game” is unfair from the start.
Sam Reed must goWhatever happens with R71 – whether the WA Supreme Court kills it or whether it wins or loses at the ballot – Sam Reed has to be thrown out. As a matter of principle, the LGBT community should make his ouster a priority.
He is lawless. I have been following this story from the beginning of the count and it is absolutely shocking. There is no question that the result here is fraudulent. If the accepted signatures were to be given a check by competent employees of the state, the result would change, as it has every time such a check has been made.
I have no idea whether Reed is pro-gay or anti-gay. But he has to go.
Well, you knowReed did certify the Referendum, in what I believe is a fairly unusual little public ceremony, the same week his party endorsed Oregon Gary and Third Marriage Larry’s effort. I’m just saying.
Not unexpectedPutting on my Pollyanna hat…
The good thing in all this is that so few registered voters actually signed the petition. Wouldn’t it be nice if this were a preview of the actual vote?
I know WFST didn’t put all their eggs in this one basket. While it would have been nice if the courts had done the right thing was anyone really expecting them to? So it’s back to doing what was planned to begin with – defeat those who would take away our rights in the name of “the people”. Don’t get sidetracked and don’t take your eyes off the prize. When all is said and done this will have been just a bump in the road to full equality.
I think of the lawsuit as due diligence,especially since the legal work was provided pro bono by Perkins Coie.
You are absolutely right that WAFST has not been standing still while the lawsuit plays out. They’ve been operating full tilt under the “hope for the best, expect the worst” assumption that the referendum will be on the ballot.