Last week, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee allowed Referendum 71 to appear on the ballot, issuing his decision in a long-ass oral ruling. The stenographers today finished the pain-in-the-ass transcription and it now appears online (.pdf). McPhee provides his logic on why tens of thousands of signatures that were arguably invalid should be accepted.
Here's an excerpt about petitions that weren't signed by the signature gatherer:
Of the 2,680 petitions unsigned by the signature gatherer, 2,508 were stamped with Mr. Stickney's facsimile signature and 172 were not. I conclude that the presence of Mr. Stickney's facsimile signature is not material to any issue decided here because the presence or absence of the facsimile signature was not the basis for the Secretary's decision to accept the petition...
And here McPhee addresses the complaint that some voters may not have been registered when they signed:
For decades, the Secretary of State has used the date of checking as the date for determining whether a voter is registered. Realistically there is no other way. The Secretary of State has the ability to determine in nearly every case the date when a registered voter registered. That can be known. What cannot be known is the date when the voter, whether registered or not, signed the petition.
But Pro-gay lobby Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST) had filed the suit to keep the measure off the ballot, encouraged by a previous ruling in King County. Although the judge in the King County case, Julie Spector, said she couldn't rule to block the measure—it was out of her jurisdiction—she acknowledged "the Secretary of State does have the power to refuse petitions with falsely signed declarations, petitions with blank declarations, and signatures of people who were not yet registered voters." Spector also noted that while some people may register to vote at the time they sign a petition—meaning they aren't registered when they sign the it—"that does not mean it is in accordance with Washington law." In the Thurston County Suit, WAFST also argued that election observers saw some signatures accepted that they believed were invalid.
WAFST decided not to appeal, but they did join a recent lawsuit filed by the state to release the petition signatures to the public. That way, they argue, citizens could independently verify if the some signatures were accepted in error.
4
Comments (5) RSS