Who's to say the signatures were to get lost? File 20 different ones and sow confusion as to which of the many legitimate petitions any individual signed, but dutifully turn in all the signatures to all the failed, separate petitions. No fraud.
Let them file three or four or five referenda. People will sign one, and then not sign the others with the mistaken understanding that they have already signed. End result: no one gets enough signatures to make the ballot, and the marrying starts on June 7.
I'm less concerned about division in the opponents' camp and more interested in unification in the law's defenders camps.
We can probably assume they'll muster the signatures like they did for Ref. 71. If they don't, great. If they do, which orgs will be the best ones to support the legislation against the inevitable FUD from NOW/Vatican/LDS?
If Ed Murray wants all hands on deck to beat off these idiots, he better not play footsie with the road-kill Dems. They want to bring back the charter school bill with his help. If these are the people he's going to help, I find it hard to understand how he can expect help later on.
He can't have it both ways; vote for my thing and I'll vote for their thing. He needs to stand by the people who REALLY stand by him (not Rodney Tom, a pseudo-Dem).
He announced earlier this month that he'd secured $1 million from an out-of-state donor, who, by all likely calculations, is the Catholic-church-linked National Organization for Marriage.
The bolded bit is what the legislature needs to attack with maximum lethal force in the next session.
For those with knowledge of legality in Washington: can the actual existence of a referendum be challenged in a court of law?
For example--could someone with standing sue to keep the expected referendum itself off of the ballot, or declared beyond the scope of the referendum process?
We can probably assume they'll muster the signatures like they did for Ref. 71. If they don't, great. If they do, which orgs will be the best ones to support the legislation against the inevitable FUD from NOW/Vatican/LDS?
Can we get a donate link up on Slog and the front page, Dominic?
He can't have it both ways; vote for my thing and I'll vote for their thing. He needs to stand by the people who REALLY stand by him (not Rodney Tom, a pseudo-Dem).
The bolded bit is what the legislature needs to attack with maximum lethal force in the next session.
For example--could someone with standing sue to keep the expected referendum itself off of the ballot, or declared beyond the scope of the referendum process?