King County jurist declines to block R-71
King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector has refused to block
Referendum 71 from the ballot. Further litigation is considered likely, but state attorneys expect the R-71 election to be on the Nov. 3 ballot across Washington state. Most voters will be voting by mail; the earliest ballots, for military and overseas voters, must go out by Oct. 3.
Minutes after Secretary of State Sam Reed certified the measure to the statewide ballot, the judge turned aside a challenge brought earlier this week by supporters of the state’s new “everything but marriage” domestic partner law. R-71 sponsors, foes of the new law, Senate Bill 5688, want voters to reject the legislation. A coalition called Washington Families Standing Together, will ask voters to approve the law.
Judge Spector seemed to agree with some of the concerns raised by WFST in their lawsuit. She said the Constitution and laws of Washington require that a person be a registered voter before signing a petition. “While it may be common practice for individuals to register simultaneously with signing referendum petitions, and may even be good policy, that does not mean that the practice is in accordance with Washington law,” she wrote. The state Elections Division has accepted signatures of people who are found in the state voter registration database at the time of the signature-check, some of them newly registersed.
The judge also said sponsors submitted over 35,000 signatures on petitions that were not personally signed by the person who circulated the petition. The Elections Division does not throw out signatures on petitions with a missing personal signature by the solicitor, citing a 2006 attorney general’s opinion that notes that state law doesn’t require the actual signature, only that a declaration form be printed on each petition.
The judge also said neither the state nor the sponsors have addressed allegations of fraud in signature-gathering.
With0ut the challenged signatures, the measure would not have made the ballot, the judge noted.
But despite her critical comments, the judge said state law “does not require the Secretary of State to refuse to accept petitions that do not meet statutory requirements. It only limits his ability to reject petitions.” In light of two state Supreme Court opinions that supported the Secretary in earlier challenges, “this court has no authority to prevent the Secretary of State from accepting these petitions in light of their questionable validity.”
Spector noted that state law allows challengers to bring a lawsuit in Thurston County Superior Court within five days, but pointedly noted that state law “remains silent as to how the court should conduct an inquiry as to questioned conduct or validity of the certification process.” She said she didn’t personally find that she has authority to block the measure from the ballot.
Reed said he was pleased with the judge’s decision not to block the public vote. The Legislature may choose to address some of the issues highlighted by this case, but for now, the Elections Division has done an admirable job of checking each and every signature “with as much integrity as possible,”and found that there were sufficient valid signatures to warrant placing the measure on the ballot, he said.
Reed said he is not personally taking a position on the referendum, in keeping with his general policy as the state’s chief elections officer. The signature-checking was professionally and carefully done, without bias for either side, he said.
3 thoughts on “King County jurist declines to block R-71”
For those who want a more detailed explanation of how Judge Spector took the SoS to task for its acceptance of these petitions — but then said she was powerless to do anything — please see my posted comment under the SoS Blog entry earlier today (9/2) entitled “Reed certifies R-71 to fall ballot”. While Dave Ammons provided a fair description of Judge Spector’s decision, he did not quote from several other parts of it which critically question how the SoS could certify R71 for the ballot. But then the Judge said that the case had to be brought in Thurston County. Let’s see what happens when the other shoe drops — ie, a Thurston County lawsuit and/or appeal of Judge Spector’s ruling.
Again, whether you are for or against R-71, whether you are pro-gay or anti-gay or neutral, whether you are liberal or conservative, whether you are Democrat or Republican or other, we are talking about the integrity of the signature gathering/counting process here — not the merits of R71. If roles were reversed, and if ACORN (for example) or another ‘liberal’ group gathered signatures for a ‘liberal’ referendum the way that many (not all) R71 supporters gathered signatures here, and if the SoS certified such an ACORN petition using the process that he used here for R71, how many of you who are ‘pleased’ with the SoS action here on R71 would be ‘pleased’ if such an ACORN petition was certified for the ballot under the same circumstances? Please read Judge Spector’s opinion (or at least more detailed excerpts), and then make an informed decision about how you feel in regard to what the SoS did in allowing R71 on the ballot.
So let me get this straight…it may not be in accordance with the law, but the signatures are accepted? Is that in the general policy? Was it just getting exhausting to go through and validate every signature so this was a way to hurry the process? I am not sure that I would agree that validating signatures that were from non-registered voters AT THE TIME they signed is a measure of integrity, so much as, a means to hurry a process. I would say following policy regardless of how long that takes, would make me feel the process was done with integrity and without bias. And I think that the suggestion that this was not done with bias will and should fall under scrutiny, as the signatures that would have been invalidated may have meant this doesn’t go on the November ballot.
How about we wait until the challenge in Thurston County Court runs its course? Her decision was filed in exactly the same sort of non-binding manner that most judges do when bouncing a case from their court on the grounds that it is out of their jurisdiction to rule.
The main argument to be presented in Thurston County will use the standing case law and examples from other states– in other states, those certifications must be signed. Furthermore, the court in Thurston County typically rules in favor of requiring a jurat be signed as it is the seat of state government and diminishing the purpose of such a declaration is not good precedent, regardless of legislative intent. The AGO’s opinion was rooted in the fundamental purpose of the AGO’s office, that any ambiguous language be interpreted in a favorable light until judicial or legislative clarification.
It’s a bit troublesome that the SoS’s office would be keen on trumpeting a success when, in plain language, Judge Spector openly questioned the validity of thousands of signatures and condemned the voter registration scheme. She only bounced the case because it’s statutorily out of her jurisdiction, mainly because the legislature intended that the Secretary of State would have discretion enough to make the right decision at the end of the day. Judge Spector reserved outright judgment, but made it clear what the right decision was.
It all boils down to the fact that no good initiative or referendum should be founded on invalid and sometimes fraudulent signatures. I’m sure the sponsors would agree. I hope.
Comments are closed.