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.

6 thoughts on “R-71 monitoring plan draws Eyman fire”

  1. UPDATE: Tim Eyman says this proposed initiative is “one of several ideas we’re doing R&D (research and development) on as an initiative in the future,” possibly as an initiative to the people next year. If history is a guide, a 2010 initiative to the voters would be far more likely than Eyman actually pursuing signatures this year for a plan he would route through the Legislature. He says he hopes his proposal will generate discussion about the issue, and that he will announce specific plans once they firm up. He notes that he went through more than a dozen drafts of his current I-1033 before actually going to the street to get signatures. That one deals with revenue limits at state, county and city levels, with any excess collections going to property tax relief.

  2. I hope Eyman’s new initiative also prohibits referendum and initiative backers from using signer data for their own organizations’ gains. For example, Gary Randall, a backer of Ref 71, and previously of Ref 65 in 2006, admitted that when a referendum fails to get enough signatures, organizations like his sell or trade the lists of names gathered, and also use them in-house for fundraising and other solicitations.

  3. Eyeman has it backwards.

    The Secretary of State should be required to post the name and address of every signature on an initiative petition or a referendum petition.

    1. Citizens taking part in a legislative process should expect public scrutiny, just as legislators face public scrutiny of official actions.

    2. This would give a registered voter a chance to find out if someone forged his or her signature on a petition.

    3. This would give any watchdog group a chance to audit the signatures.

    This isn’t a vote with guaranteed secrecy. Even in case of a vote it is a public record if you voted. Make all names and addresses public!

  4. If Mr. Eyman does decide to file an 2010 Initiative to the People to block/redact the names of people who sign, I wonder if he will inform them that the law the are hoping to pass by this process will not go into effect until the November elections, and that their names on the petition will be part of the public record, therefore available to anyone who cares to put them on the website, between July and November of 2010.

    What I really don’t understand is, if you believe in an initiative enough to sign it, why do you feel intimidated about letting your neighbors, family, and others know about it? Are you too embarrassed to have a conversation about your own beliefs and behaviors? In the case of R-71, do you find it OK to intimidate a particular group of people by taking their hard-fought rights away, while not having the courage to fess up to your own views that you willing make public? Remember, when you sign a petition for a ballot measure, you are signing a PUBLIC document (once the signatures are turned in). If you want privacy the solution is simple: don’t sign.

Comments are closed.

Comments are closed.