State to appeal Judge Settle’s R-71 ruling
As many already know, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle yesterday issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting release of the names and addresses of those who signed Referendum 71 petitions, despite public records requests for them. The Attorney General’s Office announced today that the State will appeal Judge Settle’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We do not yet know the timeline for the appeal.
We support the decision to appeal this case (Doe v. Reed). Our office has followed the state law that says referendum petitions are public records and thus should be made available upon request. We believe in open government and think Judge Settle’s decision is a step away from open government. When people sign a referendum or initiative petition, they are trying to change state law. We believe that changing state law should be open to public view. The petition sheets are the first stage of changing state law that, once submitted to the Secretary of State, become public records subject to the Public Records Act.
We hope the Ninth Circuit will agree with us in this case and allow the petitions to be released. If Judge Settle’s ruling stands, we are very concerned that it could set a dangerous precedent that sponsors of future initiatives or referenda might use to prevent their petition sheets from being made available to the public, even though they are government documents.
6 thoughts on “State to appeal Judge Settle’s R-71 ruling”
If the Secretary of State — and the AG — are really serious about upholding the public’s right to know, they will file emergency papers with the Court of Appeals so that this poorly-reasoned decision by Judge Settle can be appealed immediately. In view of the fact that the voting is less than 2 months away, the normal appeals process can take MONTHS; but an emergency appeal can decide this case in a couple of weeks.
The SoS and AG have already screwed up this case when it started. They allowed Judge Settle to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) that lasted 35 days — when the federal rules are absolutely, totally clear that TROs cannot last beyond 20 days UNLESS all parties agree. So either the SoS and AG agreed to a 35-day TRO (and now they find themselves up against the wall with the election approaching quickly) OR the SoS and AG didn’t read the federal rules about a 20-day limit on TROs. In any event, even when 35 days was up, and Judge Settle said he was going to extend the TRO for another 8 or 10 days, the SoS and AG let it happen again — they could have and should have objected. The point is that if the SoS and AG had litigated this case correctly from the beginning, Judge Settle’s TRO would have expired about August 21 — or if Judge Settle allowed it to continue before August 21, the SoS and AG could have gone immediately to the Court of Appeals which has in the past, in very similar situations, dissolved TROs that go beyond 20 days.
But we are where we are — and it’s largely due to the SoS and AG prior handling of this matter. There is only one way to make up for that: and that is for the SoS and AG to aggressively pursue an immediate, emergency appeal to the Court of Appeals. Briefs can be filed by both sides (and the intervenors) within 2 weeks, oral argument could be held the next day after the briefs are filed, and the Court of Appeals (if it chooses) could issue a decision almost immediately. Although the SoS and AG don’t control the Court of Appeals schedule, they can make every effort to ask that court to act quickly. And hopefully the intervenors will do the same, now that they are official parties to this case.
Everything about the R71 referenda is really beginning to smell. Federal judge grants improper TRO when SoS and AG don’t object; SoS counts signatures from persons who were not registered when they signed; names of petition circulators are not listed on the petitions and SoS says that isn’t a problem; SoS accepts numerous petitions with circulator name filled in by someone who wasnt even the true circulator; SoS reviews rejected signatures 3 times to find ways to accept them, while refusing to review accepted signatures even once to see if they were properly accepted……and on and on and on. Regardless of what Judge McPhee said in the state court decision, that judge also recognized that the SoS HAD THE DISCRETION to reject these petitions, but did not do so.
The way that the SoS and AG have handled the entire R71 matter is an embarrassment to Washington. Whether you are for or against domestic partnerships, you cannot possibly be in favor of this type of secretive, double-standard petition process where something can be put on the ballot WITHOUT THE NAMES OF THE PETITION CIRCULATORS OR THE NAMES OF THE (ALLEGED) VOTERS WHO SIGNED THE PETITIONS BEING KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC!!! This would truly be a funny joke if it wasnt such a sad commentary on how Washington and how the SoS/AG have handled this process from the beginning.
You can go to the legislature’s web site and see which Senators and Representatives voted in favor or against.
People who signed the petition should also be made known. Some of them may have signed simply because they believe that in a matter this contentious, the people should have the ability to ultimately decide.
Just as the people reserve the right to file Initiatives and Referendums, they also have the right to open government.
Only now will the state appeal the secrecy because the referendum is already certified and being printed on ballots and gay rights groups won’t challenge the validity of any signature. So even though this referendum should NOT have made it on the ballot because tens of thousands of illegal signatures were accepted it will still be on the ballot. This is all for show by the attorney general.
Well, Scooter, the SoS and the AG are both members of political party that backs the efforts of people behind Ref-71.
All four posters above make excellent points. I too am embarrassed by what has happened with this referendum and what it says about democracy in this state.
I would think that the SoS would not want to see Judge Settle’s decision overturned.
I mean, if the public can see all of the signatures, we can run our own “master check” of the 121,000 signatures accepted by Mr. Reed’s army of temps. Temps with 2 hours of training who had a 13% mistake rate in confirming signatures.
We can do the master check that Mr. Reed – out of laziness or bias – obstinately refused to do. And if there is even a 1% temp mistake rate in that group of accepted signatures, we will know that the SoS has wrongfully certified this referendum.
Comments are closed.