R-71: Thurston jurist green-lights Nov. 3 vote
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee has given a go-ahead for a statewide vote Nov. 3 on Washington’s new “everything but marriage” law expanding benefits for state-registered domestic partners.
McPhee dismissed a challenge brought by supporters of the law, Washington Families Standing Together. In a lengthy statement delivered from the bench following wide-ranging oral arguments, the judge fully sided with the Secretary of State’s handling of signature-checks for Referendum 71 and dismissed all of the points made by the challengers.
The jurist said the state’s decision to allow people to simultaneously register and sign petitions is very reasonable, with the “date of check” being the real deadline for the registration to be processed and in the state voter rolls. He even accepted more than 40 signatures of voters whose registration entered the voter rolls after the sponsors’ July 25 signature turn-in. McPhee also agreed with the Secretary’s decision not to discard signatures from petiti0ns without the solicitor’s signature on the back. That would have meant throwing out over 35,000 signatures. The sponsors barely qualified.
“We’re pleased and gratified with the judge’s strong ruling, and now it’s time to move on, to get the Voters’ Pamphlet printed and ballots prepared,” said state Elections Director Nick Handy. “It was a close check and we used great care in checking each of the signatures. There were many legal issues here, and we’re happy that the judge has concurred with our handling of the process. I was so glad to see how respectful the judge was in protecting the people’s right to referendum.”
Secretary of State Sam Reed concurred, and congratulated the elections team for its signature-checking process during a high-pressure, high-visibility setting probably unprecedented in the nearly one century the state Constitution has permitted initiatives and referenda. He also praised the work of the attorney general’s office in defending the Elections Division.
The challengers declined to say whether they will make a last-ditch appeal to the state Supreme Court, but indicated they still want to investigate some of the signatures that were accepted by the state Elections Division workers.
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.
16 thoughts on “R-71: Thurston jurist green-lights Nov. 3 vote”
You did a terrible job. Why did you adjust the count this morning before court as reported by the Seattle Times? I have NO faith in the job you did and because of the terrible job nearly 6000 families are at risk this November. I wish Sam Reeds job was on the ballot. Looking forward to the next time around.
One can only hope that Judge McPhee’s ruling is appealed to the WA Supreme Court. Although some issues were fair game for argument on both sides (for example, did circulators have to fill-in their names?), Judge McPhee’s decision lacks any credibility with many of us on ANY of the issues because it completely went overboard when it ruled that persons who were not registered when they signed the petitions could still have their signatures counted as long as they had registered by the time their petition signatures were checked by the SoS — even if they registered AFTER the deadline set by the Constitution for submitting the signatures and even though the Constitution itself (and the WARNING on the petition) says that a person who signs is certifying that he/she “IS” a registered voter. Not only is Judge McPhee’s ruling directly contrary to the Constitution, it is the ONLY decision in any court in any state that allows referendum signatures to be considered valid when the person registered after they signed! What a sad commentary on Judge McPhee’s so-called ‘analysis’. Hopefully the WA Supreme Court will hear this case and reverse it. This has NOTHING to do with whether you are for our against the merits of R-71. It has EVERYTHING to do with the integrity of the signature gathering process. Washington State has become more of a joke than even Washington DC!
This question is for either Nick Handy, David Ammons or possibly even Sam Reed: Why do you believe the Washington State Constitution requires the number of signatures it does from petitions to place a referendum or initiative on the ballot? It would seem the best access to the ballot be to require only one signature. Why do you believe this isn’t the case? I have my own opinion and understanding of the reasoning behind it, but I would rather hear your thoughts without declaring my own. Thank you in advance for your reply.
Obviously, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and Judge McPhee are partisan Republicans. A majority of the Supreme Court has been appointed by Republican Governors, so justice may well be elusive there as well. Still, I hope that McPhee’s ruling is appealed. The actions of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and Judge McPhee aids and abets fraud. They don’t even care about enforcing the election laws that say that one cannot sign a petition more than once, that a signature gatherer must attest that no fraud was used to obtain signatures, or that one must be registered in order to sign a petition. So much for the rule of law.
How many times have election officials “readjusted” the numbers?
I’ve lost ALL faith in the voting process! If the law of the State of Washington was followed there were NOT enough signatures, I didn’t realize an opinion by the Secretary of State overrides the laws and constitution.
Jay Johnson: You partisan blast is way off the mark. When was the last time we had a Republican Governor – 1984. There is no sitting justice on the WA State Supreme Court that is here from 1984. To accuse McPhee of being a Republican is beyond pale. You don’t even know these people and your facts are so wrong – how does that reflect on the rest of your argument. Work to pass this referendum and slam down the opponents – and that will shut down the Oregon Evangelical mafia. BTW – it was Sen Murry and Rep. Pederson who decided to have domestic partnership registration in Sam Reed’s office because they did and do trust him. Argue your case on factual realities as to why these expanded rights are important not on off-base emotional diatribe that knows little of the law as well as legal precedence in the gathering of signatures.
Brian– the threshhold for viability of I&R support for a place on the ballot was set in the constitution, adopted by supermajorities of the Legislature and a majority of the voters. For referenda, it was, of course, a number equal to 4 percent of the most recent gubernatorial vote; for initiatives, double that, 8 percent, but with much longer periods to collect signatures. It’s considered fairly difficult to achieve — witness that there haven’t been that many qualified for the statewide ballot since all this began early in the last century, and most modern campaigns have heavily used paid signature gathering. The I&R Institute on the USC campus is a good source of info. Their only bias is that they love “direct democracy.” Our OSOS elections website has the full history of our I&R, including all those introduced and what happened to them.
Neil–hey, is that a trick question? the numbers were adjusted every day during the check, plus the updates for master checker and for recent registration checks. yesterday’s, which did not change the official certification that had already shown enough signatures for a place on the ballot, reflected a fresh manual count of the accepted signatures, growing out of a records request by Washington Families.
Re my comment above: I just remembered that Justice Bridge has retired. Also that Supreme Court Justices in Washington are elected, not appointed, so there are a number of republicans on the court though they run on a nonpartisan ballot.
David, thank you for your reply, but you did not answer my question. I’ll copy it here verbatim for you, “Why do you believe the Washington State Constitution requires the number of signatures it does from petitions to place a referendum or initiative on the ballot?” Curiously, I’ve read the history of I&R in Washington, and am quite familar with the thresholds required to reach the ballot. Unfortunately, my question wasn’t about either of those things. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind revisiting the question of why the Washington Constitution requires signatures equal to 4 percent of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election to place a referendum on the ballot? Why not just one?
Jay – try again – you will not that many of the Justices were appointed first. Still – your partisan swipe does not hold water because the justices sided with the Sec of State twice – unanimously – during the governor’s race – and went against each party. Your attempt to taint the process smacks of teh Rossi people and their friends in the building industry – that is how they talk – now get out and fight the opponents of these important rights instead of the very person who is helping to administer the program!
Jack: it is touching that you are defending this tainted process in which the Secretary of State has disregarded laws intended to prevent voter fraud, and has indeed abetted that fraud. At this date, I doubt that WFST will appeal to the supreme court. Given McPhee’s ruling, there is no reason to think that justice can be had in this state. Yes, I will indeed fight to sustain the law passed by the legislature. But given these rulings, why would anyone expect that law to actually be enforced even if it is sustained? This is a sad day for Washington and for the rule of law.
Voter fraud was abetted from the top to the bottom. The REAL rejection rate is way higher than 12.43%.
It would be great if someone could post a transcript or audio recording of Judge McPhee’s oral ruling.
It doesn’t matter if this last “readjustment” changed whether the referendum got on the ballot or not. The fact is election officials BURIED the changed numbers at the bottom of this post on a topic completely different. Why would election officials BURY these changed numbers? Why would election officials not contact the press? You contacted the press right after referendum 71 “qualified” even though the WAFST asked you not to until their lawsuit was settle. Instead you rushed the certification through so it would look like WAFST was trying to block a certain group from voting on gay people’s rights. 1
I’m just surprised that the headline didn’t have an obligitory exclamation points. . .”R-71: Thurston jurist green-lights Nov. 3 vote!!!”.
I’ve lost all faith in my AG and SOS.
Comments are closed.