R-71 signature take-backs?

R-71 signature take-backs?

johndoesigWell, no.  In response to inquiries, the state Elections Division says state regulations adopted on 2006 do not permit voters to withdraw their initiative and referendum petitions once the petition sheets have been turned over to the state for verification. The analogy is that voters can’t re-call a mail-in ballot because they believe they were misled or lied to by a candidate or campaign.

It’s true that a half-century-old attorney general’s opinion said the Secretary of State has authority to accept withdrawal of signatures, but the Elections Division has chosen to not allow take-backs, on both policy and practicality grounds. There is no state law on the subject; the state attorney general’s office concurs with the Elections Division reading of this issue.

Here is a fuller explanation by Nick Handy, state director of elections:

“The attorney general issued advice in 1956 indicating that the Secretary of State had authority to write regulations authorizing the withdrawal of signatures from an initiative petition. Consistent with the attorney general’s advice (about the agency’s discretion), the Secretary of State has promulgated regulations on this matter in WAC 434-379-008 (2), stating as follows: `Signatures on initiative or referendum petitions submitted to the Secretary may not be removed from the petition or eliminated from the signature count. Letters submitted to the Secretary requesting the removal of ones own signature from a petition must be retained by the Secretary as part of the public record for the petition.’

“Thus the Office of Secretary of State has taken the position that signatures on initiative and referendum petitions may not be removed from petitions after the petitions have been submitted to the office. 

“This rule follows the general policy that a deadline must be established beyond which the number of signatures submitted is fixed.  A voter may not change his or her vote after the deadline for an election even if the voter feels he or she was misled into voting for a particular candidate.  Similarly, the rule has been adopted that a signor of an initiative or referendum petition may not withdraw his or her signature after the petitions have been submitted to the Secretary of State.

“As a practical matter, finding such signatures would be extremely difficult.  A typical initiative sponsor submits over 300,00 signatures on over 16,000 petition sheets.  The signatures randomly appear handwritten on these petition sheets.  Finding and removing individual signatures from these sheets after the deadline for petition submission would be administratively impractical.” 

6 thoughts on “R-71 signature take-backs?

  1. This question highlights the need for the state to provide ready access to the list of signatories to a petition. The answer provided is technologically antiquated – it should be easy enough to provide a searchable database of those who signed petitions.

    As initiatives and referenda have become an industry in this state, there have been more frequent cases of duplicitous methods and fraud in the process.

    How hard would it be to make the names public, and provide a short window of time to correct the record? That would still meet the standard of having a fixed period of time beyond which the results are final. The comparison to voting is a bit too much of a stretch – voting is a private action. Signing a petition is inherently public and is the behavior of an activist – there’s nothing wrong with modernizing the way we respond to it.

  2. Paul — will pass your thoughts along. We have always treated I&R petitions as releasable public records (absent a court order barring it, of course, as we have at the moment). We don’t post them anywhere, but do make them available in a variety of digital formats that the recipient can organize into database spreadsheets according to their need.

    The point on the recalling ones ballot from the stack that has been submitted to the auditor may not be precisely analogous, but it does make that point that once you have decided to sign the petition and the sponsor turns it over to the state for checking, it is not retrievable, for the reasons cited above, any more than you can request that your ballot be returned if you change your mind about a race because you learned that you were mislead. Buyer-beware, as in so much of life, comes to bear here. Don’t sign something you haven’t read or fully understand. Don’t rely on the solicitor’s sales pitch, but rather through your own homework and conferring with sources and people whom you trust.

    The initiative and referendum process is constitutionally guaranteed, but it is not without its shortcomings and perils, I’ll grant you. We always hope that every signature is legally obtained, with no misinformation or lies, and that there is no harassment of signature-gatherers or potential signers. Free speech and access to the ballot box belong to us all. Either the sponsors get on the ballot or not, and then we can all, hopefully, have a civil conversation on the merits or demerits of the plan.

    I’ll get off my soapbox. I know you know everything i just said, but wanted to riff a bit for folks who may be new to our process. Thanks for writing.

  3. I wonder how many people are having voters remorse following the November 08 elections and would take back their vote if they had the opportunity? I believe the regulation as it stands is fair and balanced.

  4. I’m curious as to what the process is if ones signature appears due to forgery, I assume that in that case there’s some process involved. It’s pretty disgusting when people lie to get signatures, but I understand the bind that the Secretary of States office is in when it comes to that sort of subjective judgment especially on controversial issues. And is probably best dealt with in other ways.

    But I am personally somewhat troubled that due to the court order, the public is being deprived of the right to verify that their signature wasn’t included or possibly that it was. I realize that the injunction is probably going to hang on until the certification process is over, hopefully no longer.

    If I missed it on the site, my apologies.

  5. A random question: under what conditions would a judge issue a court order barring release of names on a petition?

  6. Perez and Thomas– thanks for yr comments. Thomas–our checkers closely compare the signature on the petition with the one that’s on file with their voter registration. If they don’t match for any reason, the signature is disqualified. If there were to be prosecution, that wouldn’t be the SecState or the state attorney general, who don’t have those police powers, but local authorities acting on a complaint. If our checkers found obvious fraud, they also could flag the situation for further attention. Haven’t heard of any such examples with this check.

    Jake and Thomas — As you note, we are under federal court order, until at least Sept. 3, not to release copies of the referendum petitions. As you know, our longstanding policy is that they are releasable public records. The federal judge issued a temporary order blocking release, pending a hearing on a First Amendment case brought forward by the sponsors. It is unusual, but not unprecedented, for a court to protect unpopular free speech by waiving disclosure requirements. I’m reminded of a state case where Gerry Alexander, now the chief justice and then a Thurston-Mason Superior Court judge, said the Socialist Workers Party didn’t have to disclose its contributors/members to the Public Disclosure Commission, because the government and potential critics might harass, intimidate or otherwise misuse the information. His ruling was not appealed. So it is handled on a case-by-case basis, with the moving party needing to show imminent harm by being publicly identified with an unpopular cause. The Open Records Act was part of the disclosure initiative passed by the voters back in 1972, and neither the Legislature nor the voters via initiative have ever carved out an exemption to shield I&R petitions, though several hundred other exemptions have been approved over time. Ergo, our position that the petitions are disclosable.

Comments are closed.

Comments are closed.