5 Questions about the R-71 check: Still scratching your head?

5 Questions about the R-71 check: Still scratching your head?

Are you dreaming about signature checks yet? No?! Then get ready for our team to talk you through your R-71 signature check question in our daily “5 Questions” post. You’re scratching your head about the jumble of numbers and knowing what you’re voting for … but not for long …

Q) When is the check going to end? It seems like it has been going on for a long time …
A) The end is right around the corner! Our Elections Director just last night announced that the check is almost done and should be finished by Tuesday, Sept. 1, at the latest. This is based on the rate the checkers have reviewed signatures – there are only about 20,000 signatures left to be checked.  We believe it’s still too close to predict whether R-71 will make it on the November ballot … but we will be able to announce whether it has made it or not when the check is completely finished and all signatures are carefully reviewed. Stay tuned.

r7125i

Q) I’m confused about how I’m supposed to vote if R-71 makes it to the ballot. If it gets on the ballot, and I don’t support the referendum, I’m supposed to vote “approved”? And if it gets on the ballot, and I do support the referendum, I’m supposed to vote “rejected”? This seems backwards.
A) When a referendum makes it on the ballot, you are not voting on whether or not you favor the referendum! Instead, you are voting “approve” or “reject” on the actual BILL the Legislature passed this past session – the bill that this referendum is challenging.

If R-71 appears on the ballot, you will be making a choice as to whether you agree or disagree with the state’s adoption of Senate Bill 5688 – the “everything but marriage” law – that expands state rights and responsibilities to state-registered domestic partners.  If you are for this law, you will vote “approve” for the state to keep it. If you are not for the law, you will vote “reject” for the state to get rid of it. 

It can seem a bit strange, but this is why it is so important to be informed about what you are voting on. Be sure to read everything carefully, and do your research before you return your ballot!

(Moderator’s Note: This post has been corrected 8/28 to better reflect the exact ballot language you’ll see if this makes it in November. As one of our readers pointed out, the ballot actually requires to you to vote “approve” or “reject — not “yes” or “no”)

Q) You mentioned that only the master checkers can see the master live statewide database, and the master checkers only check the rejected sigs. So what database do the checkers use on the first round to accept and reject signatures?
A) Because of security, not everyone is given access to the live statewide database – which is fluid and changes each day as people tie the knot, change their names, move to a bigger house, move to a smaller house, and so on.  Most checkers work off of a recent “snapshot” or copy of the live statewide database. If the signature is found and matched during this step, it has been identified and is counted. If a signature cannot be found on that copy by an additional checker, then we check the name against the live database to make sure this person hasn’t recently registered, moved, changed their name, etc.  Read up about checkers and master checkers in our FAQs.

Q) Why report names as “rejected” on the spreadsheets when they have not yet gone through the third and final check? They aren’t definitively rejected even if they’re in the rejected pile? (My head hurts.)
A) There are multiple steps in this very painstaking signature check process – and understanding the daily numbers, which will shift slightly depending on what check they are going through, can leave some feeling a bit dizzy (sorry about your head!). Since the “rejected” signatures go through additional sleuthing to make sure those names really truly cannot be found in our database, there are instances where an initially rejected signature will move to the accepted pile. That is simply part of the process, and one we have talked a lot about here.

We are trying to release as much data as we can so that you can track the process.  However, the most telling number really is the “approved” signature pile. This is the pile to watch. When it comes down to it, 120,577 is the magic number – this is how many approved signatures are required to get the referendum on the ballot. The other “piles” are simply listed for your information.

Q) The Secretary of State says it considers the names on the petitions to be public records, and wants them released – but what about the issue of using the records to harass individuals who signed? Shouldn’t you be preventing that?
A) The Elections Division has a consistent policy of granting public-records requests for initiative and referendum petition sheets. There is no statute that permits the state to deny the request or to black out any of the fields, such as the voter’s signature. Our office has been very vocal about cautioning against the use of legitimate public records to harass or intimidate voters for exercising their constitutionally protect right of initiative and referendum. We do not condone the use of a record to bully someone, but we do feel that it’s the public’s right to have access to these records and that the law is very clear about making them available.

Have a question about the R-71 checks? If you can’t find it in our comprehensive R-71 FAQs, then leave us a comment and our team will do our best to answer or clarify in our daily “5 Questions” posts. You may also want to watch our video of the check to give you a visual on the process.

7 thoughts on “5 Questions about the R-71 check: Still scratching your head?

  1. Christina,

    Thank you for continuing to post more information about the process. It does make it more clear what is happening, even for those of us who disagree with the process.

    As to your latest post today, once again the post has confirmed that the SoS actions in accepting many signatures is directly contrary to the law. You’ve stated: “If the signature is found and matched during this step, it has been identified and is counted. If a signature cannot be found on that copy by an additional checker, then we check the name against the live database to make sure this person hasn’t recently registered, moved, changed their name, etc.”

    The notion that the SoS would accept a signature from someone who has “recently registered” — after signing the petition, or even after the petition was submitted — simply does not jive with the state law which says:

    Per RCW 29A.71.140 — anyone who “signs this petition when he or she IS not a legal voter” is committing a crime (the word “IS” is emphasized by me)

    Per RCW 29A.71.130 — the petition must say “We, the undersigned citizens and LEGAL VOTERS of the State of Washington …..and each of us for himself or herself says: I have personally signed this petition; I AM A LEGAL VOTER of the State of Washington … ” (the words in CAPS are emphasized by me)

    Per RCW 29A.71.150 — “when the person or organization demanding any referendum of an act or part of an act of the legislature HAS OBTAINED a number of signatures of LEGAL VOTERS equal to or exceeding four percent of the votes cast for the office of governor at the last regular gubernatorial election prior to the submission of the signatures for verification, the petition containing the signatures may be submitted to the secretary of state for filing” (the words in CAPS are emphasized by me)

    There are other sections of state law that make it perfectly clear that a signer must be a LEGAL VOTER WHEN HE/SHE SIGNS. How the SoS can keep checking ‘live database to make sure that this person hasn’t recently registered” is truly troubling (and it effectively extends the 90 day filing period for referenda petitions that exists in RCW 29A.71.030)! I realize that you personally don’t make the rules, Christina — and apparently a judge will have to sort this out.

  2. Thank you for the answer regarding the snapshot copy of the database. Note that there is a difference between a snapshot copy and a program that imports the data for local use. Looking at the user interface in the video, then, I assume it is the same interface as the official statewide database. If different, please clarify, if same, no need to answer.

    Again, this is a useful service and appreciated.

  3. Why didn’t the Secretary of State defend the law requiring signatures be made public in late July?

    Tell us of any other petition where the rejected signatures recieved five looks.

    Another thing, election officials are accepting signatures from people who were NOT “legal voters ON the petition” according to state law RCW 29A.72.230.

  4. Christina,

    Although you cannot reveal ‘names’, can you please let us know —

    1) How many NEW registered voters had their names added to the voter list between the date that the legislature adjourned and the date that is one day before the R71 petition was submitted? (This should be relatively quick for the SoS to determine)

    2) How many NEW registered voters had their names added to the voter list on the date that the R71 petition was submitted? (Again, this should be quick)

    3) How many NEW registered voters had their names added to the voter list between the date after the R71 petition was submitted and today (August 27)? (Again, this should be quick)

    4) Of the persons in categories 1, 2 and 3 above — how many in EACH category were also names that appeared on the R71 petitions? (For example, 300 names on the petitions were from voters in category 1 who registered between the legislative adjournment and the petition filing date, 100 names on the petitions were from voters in category 2 who registered on the petition filing date, and 1,000 names were from voters in category 3 who registered after the petition filing date).

    When you answer these questions, it will become much more clear if the SoS’s use of the ‘live database’ has affected the qualification of the petition. If the petition succeeds by 1,500 votes, and if only 1,200 names of the petition fall into categories 2 and 3, then use of the ‘live database’ IN AND OF ITSELF did not affect the result.

    Of course, that still leaves open the question about whether the people in category 1 (ie, voters who registered during the time the petition was being circulated) signed the petition BEFORE they actually were registered to vote — which probably won’t get determined until a court proceeding allows more facts to be discovered about these signers. And it also leaves open the question about whether it was legal to triple-check only initially-rejected signatures and not even double-check any initially-accepted signatures —- especially given the potential 14% ‘error rate’ that was found when 222 initially-accepted signatures were double-checked. So, for example, if 1,200 names on the petition fall into categories 2 and 3, but if another 400 names fall into category 1 and even a 1% error rate exists in regard to initially-accepted signatures that were never double-checked (i.e., 1% of 120,00 – 1,200), then the combination of all of the above problems has probably allowed the petition to qualify when it should not have qualified.

    Thanks!

  5. I think you’re giving inaccurate information in the answer to one of the questions. It is my understanding that voters will not have the choice of “yes” or “no” on the November ballot, regarding Referendum 71. Rather the choice will be “approve” or “reject.” I think it’s important that the Secretary of State’s office use the same language in educating voters about the ballot as will actually appear there.

    To find out more about the language of the ballot, people can visit http://www.wafst.org

  6. Here is a very easy question: Why would the Secretary of State accept signatures on petitions that were not certifed by the petition circulator? This is against state law.

  7. two things:
    1. the Washington State consititution requires a certain amount of registered voters sign a referendum petition to qualify the measure for the ballot when the signatory registered to vote is not an issue just that the person be registered when the signatures are checked….. also recently “registered” voters may have already been registered to vote in Washington but merely updated their voter registration information due to name changes, or change of address etc……

    2. state law does not require the declaration/affidavit of the petition to be signed….in fact the legislature actually tried to pass a law to require the circulator to sign the declaration affidavit but could not pass the law SEE: WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION 2006 NO.13 MAY 31, 2006 the brief answer is below:

    BRIEF ANSWER

    The answer to your first question is no. Laws of 2005, ch. 239 does not require a signature gatherer to sign the declaration required to be printed on the reverse side of the petition. With regard to your second question, if a petition does not contain the statement [original page 2] required by Laws of 2005, ch. 239, RCW 29A.72.170 authorizes the secretary of state to refuse to file the petition.

Comments are closed.

Comments are closed.