R-71 monitoring plan draws Eyman fire

R-71 monitoring plan draws Eyman fire

r71Initiative promoter Tim Eyman is taking aim at potential harassment of signature-gatherers  and people who sign their petitions.  One feature of his new initiative says the names, signatures and addresses of people who sign initiatives and referenda would be blacked out before petition sheets are made public by the state Elections Division.

This grows out of announced plans by some supporters of a new “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law to put online the names and addresses of all who sign petitions for  Referendum 71. The referendum is sponsored by people who oppose the new law, Senate Bill 5688, and seek a public vote this fall.

Some opponents of R-71 say they want to create a database of the names and addresses so that opponents can talk with them about the ramifications of the referendum.  The referendum sponsors, though, say it amounts to bullying and that the threat of publicizing the signers is aimed at suppressing signatures.

Eyman’s “Protect the Initiative Process” measure, filed Friday with the state Elections Division as an initiative to the 2010 Legislature, says redacting the names and addresses from petitions that are made public would “ensure the safety of individuals … and protect them from and make them less susceptible to, intimiation, retaliation, harassment and identity theft.”  His measure also includes other protections for signature-gatherers and would extend the amount of time sponsors have to collect signatures.

Eyman will have until the end of the year to gather about 241,000 valid voter signatures to win a place on the Legislature’s agenda. Lawmakers could pass his plan, ignore it and allow it to go to the ballot, or send it and a legislative alternative to the ballot. Another route is for Eyman to switch his goal and try to send it directly to the 2010 ballot and not go through the Legislature.

R-71 sponsors have until July 25 to turn in at least 120,577 valid signatures. The Elections Division has said it has no authority to withhold or redact petitions from review as a public-records request.

Comments are closed.