Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Gay Lobby Won't Appeal R-71 Ruling

Posted by on Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Yesterday a Thurston County judge left one remaining chance to prevent Referendum 71, which would put domestic partnership rights for registered gay couples up to a vote, from going to the general-election ballot. Washington Families Standing Together had 48 hours to confer with the elections officials to determine whether challenging certain petition signatures was possible (more info). However, the group's spokeswoman, Anne Levinson, just sent this statement:

Due to the compressed time period, the lack of access to necessary information and relevant documents and the fact that election day is less than eight weeks away, WAFST will not be appealing yesterday’s ruling, so that all of our energies can be focused on ensuring that families are not put at risk by the attempted repeal of our state’s domestic partnership law. There are two Superior Court rulings on a number of questions raised as to the legality of the referenda process and the signature count. The Courts’ findings and conclusions are strikingly different, so the law will remain unsettled until there is a future challenge. At the end of the day, however, WAFST must concentrate its energies toward preserving the domestic partnership law enacted by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor, without the distraction of an ongoing legal debate over which of these two rulings is correct.

Levinson's statement, which goes on to describe problems with validating petitions and reasons to approve Referendum 71, continues after the jump.

WAFST made a sensible choice; it's time to focus on a yes-on-R-71 campaign. And the arguments for tossing out petition signatures, while potentially sound legally, became increasingly subjective and nitpicking. While it would be great to see R-71 stay off the ballot—the disproportionately old, conservative electorate should never be allowed to limit the rights of a minority population—a ruling to toss out signatures could also set precedent that narrows the initiative process. The fundamental idea of a petition is to broadly enfranchise voters, helping them participate in lawmaking and elections.

So now, onward to battle: Approve Referendum 71.

The Court ruled yesterday that signatures on referenda petitions are to be considered valid even if the person who signed was not a registered voter, and even if the petition circulator broke the law in collecting the signature. The Court's ruling created an unfortunate split in the interpretation of the applicable law. There was a similar split between the Secretary of State's Office, which originally wanted to enforce the plain language of the Constitution and laws, and the Attorney General's Office, which directed the Secretary of State to ignore these violations.

The Court last week concluded that the Secretary of State’s instruction to his staff to accept signatures of voters who were not registered voters when they signed the petitions, or even by the time the petitions were turned in, was in contravention of the State Constitution and State law. That Court found that the Secretary essentially rendered recent anti-fraud legislation meaningless when it accepted petitions with unsigned or fraudulently signed circulator declarations. That Court found as well that the Secretary had not addressed the allegations of fraud, either in its enforcement of the law or in its review of signatures, including by those who had requested their names be removed from petitions after having been misled. The actions by the opponents of the domestic partnership law to hide the names of signers, hide the names of donors, hide the payments to paid signature gatherers and refuse to put true and correct names on the backs of petitions all played a role in the inability of the Secretary or the parties to ensure the integrity of the referenda process.

But this fight isn't about the interpretation of referenda statutes. Something far more important is at stake. There are nearly 6,000 couples or 12,000 individuals, many of whom have children, who are registered as domestic partners in our state. They live in every county, in all parts of the state. The domestic partnership law ensures that all of these families have the same protections, rights, and responsibilities as their neighbors. The law guarantees that they will be treated fairly, especially in times of crisis. Some domestic partners are seniors. Often seniors can't marry without sacrificing hard-earned social security, military or pension benefits. Others are gay and lesbian couples, who rely on the domestic partnership law to provide essential protections to their families.

It was for these families that more than 155 organizations joined together to form the Washington Families Standing Together — Approve 71 campaign, to take a stand in support of the domestic partnership law. And it is on behalf of these families that more than 70 volunteers spent every day from the end of July through the 2nd of September observing the signature verification process. They participated respectfully throughout, solely for the purpose of wanting to ensure that the referendum process was fair, accurate and consistent with the law. These volunteers observed what they perceived to be errors in the acceptance of signatures as matches to registered voters, but the Secretary has no processes for such observations to be considered or reviewed. The Secretary certified the measure last week, and then yesterday revised downward the number of valid signatures accepted. The Secretary’s final determination was that there were 1,200 signatures turned in over the minimum required to place the measure on the ballot. Although Washington Families believes this determination may in fact be in error, Washington Families must instead focus its efforts on Election Day.

Ballots for Washington's November 3rd general election get mailed to voters in 6 weeks. The APPROVE 71 campaign is reaching out to voters across the state to let them know they need to vote APPROVE on R 71 to keep the domestic partnership law so that for ALL families are treated fairly and equally in our state.

 

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Original Andrew 1
First, let me just say that I’ve donated money to WAFST.

Second, their campaign to get Referendum 71 approved by voters by appealing to their non-existent sense of compassion and fairness has a 0% chance of working.

There’s a reason that anti-gay initiatives, referendum and constitutional amendments have a 100% rate of success at the ballot box: Most sadistic AmeriKKKans hate us and wish that we didn’t exist.

It’s easy for us to believe positive polls that show what happens when the public tells pollsters what think is socially acceptable. It’s all lies.

Only a campaign that’s just as aggressively confusing and dishonest as the one that got R-71 on the ballot will work. Do you think for one second that tax-cheat and that wife-beater give a damn about lying their asses off when they got this on the ballot against all odds? Hell. No.

Outside King County, the campaign needs to co-opt our enemies:

“The Queers Are Coming For Our Guns—Approve 71!”

“Homo Hunting Licenses—Approve 71!”

“Jeebus Says You’ll Fry In A Lake of Hellfire If You Don’t Approve 71!”

“Gas All The Homos—Approve 71”

Acknowledge reality, or be shocked in November when R 71 is rejected in a landslide.
Posted by Original Andrew on September 9, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Andrew Cole 2
@1, you are a terrible human being and I am ashamed to share a name with you. Nothing is worth the sort of cynical, sick manipulation you're advocating. In the long run, there isn't any doubt which way this argument is moving: gay marriage will be legal, recognized and uncontroversial within a generation. So why throw your scruples under a bus to move that recognition ahead one year or two? Fight to reform the initiative process so that signature gatherers are required to tell the truth about the petition they're collecting for. Don't stoop to the level of the opposition on this; it isn't necessary, and just weakens your ability to argue against the same tactics when they're used against you.

In conclusion, you suck. Your philosophy sucks. Your entire understanding of what it means to operate in society disgusts me.
Posted by Andrew Cole on September 9, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Baconcat 3
@1: I've always advocated taking a hard and firm approach to activism, but you're a fathead.

Instead of trying to flummox them, why not tell the truth? Playing hardball doesn't have to require lies. Hardball is easy as submitting Initiatives to the Legislature every year until they do something.
Posted by Baconcat on September 9, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Sargon Bighorn 4
I could not agree with #1 more and # 2 you are so politically naive it's shameful, makes we want to wet my pants. Oh the moral high road, yeah yeah BS and you know it. This is politics and peoples lives, not your moral code of conduct.

What #1 REALLY meant to have on his placards is:

"Save a puppy and kitten for Jesus - APPROVE R-71"

Now is that really so bad #2? Come here and let me give you a big deep hug into my ample bosom.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on September 9, 2009 at 7:19 PM
5
This is without question the dumbest post on Slog. First of all, WAFST is not a "gay lobby". And the work of defeating (or as it is now, approving) this referendum does not involve lobbying.

Second, Dominic doesn't seem to have a clue as to what the law is regarding referenda. There is no right to a referendum unless and until the requisite number of valid signatures is submitted. So any objection that goes to the validity of the signatures is not "nitpicking" nor is it "narrowing the initiative process". Those objections go to ensuring that the process is carried out as required by the WA constitution. The entire process conducted by Sam Reed was intended to capture and correct for all signatures erroneously rejected, but to deliberately leave uncorrected thousands of signatures erroneously accepted. That is not a nitpick; it is a fundamental perversion of the process.

Shame on you Dominic for your glib ignorance.
Posted by Simon Tarsis on September 9, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Andrew Cole 6
@4, maybe so. Maybe so. But rights that are granted inadvertently are only half-granted; either you are building and reinforcing a system where distortion and fabrication are not only viable means of producing policy, but significantly superior means of producing policy -- in which case the lying and manipulation of the R71 signature gatherers is not only justifiable but laudable -- or you are setting yourself up for an inevitable revocation of the rights you have worked so hard to attain. If lying is successful and sensible, you'd be a fool not to lie, and anyone, as you say, who opposes lying is pants-peeingly naive. So, then, do we salute the effective strategy and canny gamesmanship of the Larry Stickneys of the world? That's what it sounds like you're suggesting, which, uh, surprises me.

If lying is not a successful and reasonable part of the system -- if society is set up to protect people from being lied to and taken advantage of -- then rights that are secured fraudulently are liable to be revoked as the abuses in the process are revealed. Either way, I think you're a fucking moron to advocate for more sleazy politicking, rather than less. Congratulations, you bitter tumorous fuckhead.
Posted by Andrew Cole on September 9, 2009 at 8:08 PM
raindrop 7
But if R-71 wins approval, it will be a stunning validation.
Posted by raindrop on September 9, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Original Andrew 8
@ Andrew Cole,

Perhaps you'd like to direct me to all of the success stories the GLBT community has had when our rights are up for a public vote and we've appealed to Americans' (totally fictional) better nature?

Do you think the horrifying racists who were the majority of AmeriKKKans in the not too distant past woke up one day, realized they were evil assholes, then vowed to be better people? Fuck no--they died off. We're gonna spend the rest of our lives waiting for today's assholes to die off.

@ Baconcat,

Get with it. At least a third of our country's population are rubber-room-ready nutters. If you enjoy losing for years on end, then by all means stick with the current failure-guaranteed strategy.
Posted by Original Andrew on September 9, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Andrew Cole 9
@8, I agree completely. I'm not saying that appealing to people's reason is necessarily effective; I'm saying that that lying to them in order to achieve your rights is unnecessary, counter-productive, ragingly unethical and morally insupportable. The ends justify the means? Come on, this is an argument I'd expect from Loveschild. If you're convinced of the rightness of your position, fight for it fairly, openly, honestly; anything else has nothing but the barrel of a gun at the end of it.

I guess that's the question. Let's put together exactly the sort of bruisers and legbreakers that the R71 people are afraid of. Let's go out armed with rubber hoses and sweet valencia oranges and beat people until they either vote to approve the Referendum or are too crippled with internal bleeding to make it to the mailbox. Very effective, very decidedly not the "current failure-guaranteed strategy", and it wouldn't even require that many beatings before the word got out. What a lovely vision you've conjured! But at least you'll be able to enjoy all of the state rights granted to a married couple. Totally worth a couple of jail terms and a firm foundation of glowering intimidation!
Posted by Andrew Cole on September 9, 2009 at 10:32 PM
meowmeowkitty 10
@9 Honey, you are just brimming over with righteousness. Get over yourself.
Posted by meowmeowkitty on September 9, 2009 at 10:53 PM
mackro 11
so what happened to cause all this drama now? That we know for SURE sure the ref is on the ballot?

It's gonna be an uphill battle, but this is your chance, folks. You won't be able to stop campaigns you don't agree with... Just fight really hard for the campaign you choose, and make sure you're organized and ready to defend the referendum clearly as well.
Posted by mackro http://mackro.blogspot.com on September 9, 2009 at 11:29 PM
12
Dominic, what did you cut and paste for this post?
Posted by Confession is Good for the Soul on September 10, 2009 at 6:48 AM
13
APPROVE Referendum 71. Gay couples deserve the exact rights heterosexual couples have.
https://www.upwardstech.net/approverefer…
Posted by Luke Jonson on September 10, 2009 at 7:31 AM
14
I completely agree with Original Andrew. Haterosexuals don't care about lying, cheating or stealing as long a gay people are severely disadvantaged everything is ok. Haterosexuals don't want gay people to be on a level playing field with them that is why the haterosexual secretary of state and haterosexual election officials RIGGED the counting to accepting tens of thousands of signatures that were not legal. They wanted to get this referendum on the ballot so haterosexuals can take away gay people's rights.
Posted by Keegan Says on September 10, 2009 at 7:51 AM
Dominic Holden 15
@ 12) Like the post says, it's a statement from WAFST's Anne Levinson.
Posted by Dominic Holden on September 10, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Renton Mike 16
Is it okay to boot Sam Reed out yet?
Posted by Renton Mike on September 10, 2009 at 9:32 AM
17
15
not the quotation, the rest of it...
Posted by don't play games with me, boy on September 10, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Dominic Holden 18
@ 17) I copied only the brilliance contained in your comments, good sir.
Posted by Dominic Holden on September 10, 2009 at 10:03 AM
19
18
gee, Dom- I can never stay mad at you for long...
Posted by your biggest fan on September 10, 2009 at 10:23 AM
20
Very good move to drop the protests and move on with the vote. I think it will pass, but if it doesn't, I hope the next law will allow more people to benefit from benefits without being married. Just because we can marry, doesn't mean we should be forced to have the state sanction our relationships to get basic rights.
Posted by abc on September 10, 2009 at 10:41 AM
21 Comment Pulled (SockPuppetry) Comment Policy
22
r71signs.com

Download a copy of signs and POST THEM EVERYWHERE!
Posted by oly on September 10, 2009 at 3:40 PM
23
"...that is why the haterosexual secretary of state and haterosexual election officials RIGGED the counting to accepting tens of thousands of signatures that were not legal."

HAHAHAHA.

It is good sport to listen to all the jackass's who think they have the inside scoop on how the validation process went down. As someone who was personally involved with the campaign, I can tell you that the Secretary of State's office did everything in it's power to cheat Ref. 71 out of a spot on the ballot. It made it by the skin of it's teeth, and if you think that the signatures were fudged, why don't you take a look at the fact that there was an 11.8% rejection rate at the end; the third lowest in state history (state average is 18.5%). As in this was run so LEGALLY, its made the record books! They absolutely did not want this on the ballot; Sam Reed is about as conservative as a high school drama teacher.

Listen folks. You can say and vote how you want. As for me, someone who is not a religious fanatic, and actually libertarian (RON PAUL 2010!), this is not an issue of rights or equality, and is certainly not "an expansion of domestic partnership laws." This law will pave the way for gay marriage being legalized in the very near future, not that it isn't technically already. Tell that to the people and see how they respond. But guess what? In America, THE PEOPLE, not the courts, not the legislators, not the judges, not the governor, and certainly not fanatic minority fringe groups, get the ultimate say. And if the American people don't want gay marriage, and there are countless reasons why not, they will vote against it.

Majority rules- get used to it.
Posted by mstr_slik on September 10, 2009 at 7:43 PM
24
The homosexual lobby lies. All of the time. And then cries when people do not go along with their scripted program. Know why? People know they are being conned and manipulated by a 95% white, leftist, radical bunch of sexual anarchists. Think I am wrong? Look what they did in the aftermath of proposition 8 and the absollute hate expressed against people of color who voted overwhelmingly for proposition 8.Google it for dozens of examples.

And understand something else, there is no such thing as marriage equality. Homosexuals do not demand marriage equality to other marriages currently forbidden such as polygamy. Marriage equality only applies to them, no one else. If you want a snap shot of what is in store for Washington, follow California, and how the homosexual lobby is trying to teach the children how homosexuality is natural without the parents being able to opt out.. Alameda school system is being sued over it. Where homosexual marriage is allowed in Europe, children are required to be taught as young as five. See the Dutch model.

The hate door swings both ways. Watch how the homosexual lobby uses hate and intimidation during this campaign.
Posted by Sol Invictus on September 19, 2009 at 5:03 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy