This year, the Washington state legislature passed a bill providing for domestic partners. Opponents of the idea then collected signatures on a referendum petition to ask the voters if they wish to reject the new law.
Already, the petition drive had brought about one lawsuit, over whether the names of people who signed the petition should be made known to the public, or kept secret. Proponents of the petition filed that case, which has a hearing in federal court next week.
On August 27, another lawsuit was filed by opponents of the petition, alleging that the Secretary of State is approving signatures on the petition that should be rejected. The petition-checking process is still proceeding, and the results (to be announced next week) are expected to be very close. See this story.
How many lawsuits in 1776 about folks wanting to support the 4 July 1776 DOI ??
This is the New Age of INSANE EVIL Monsters with their MORON attempted cases to stop votes on basic stuff.
The lawsuit of Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST.org) has merit. The Secretary of State is apparently ignoring the law by accepting signatures from voters who didn’t register to vote until after the petition submission deadline even though signers are required by law to be registered voters. Also, they accepted over 2,000 petitions that either didn’t have the petition circulator’s declaration signed on the back, or it was stamped with a signature stamp of the campaign manager who obviously didn’t circulate those petitions himself. the referendum process is a valuable tool of the citizenry, but only when it is used lawfully.
Lurleen, could you help me out and do another comment, giving the name of the case, and perhaps even the case number, if you know it? Thank you very much. I assume it’s in state court in Thurston County.
Election officials continue to say “this is the way we always done it” yet you didn’t use the new registration databases until the 16th day of counting (8/21/09) when the rejection rate was approaching 12.43% and you didn’t use “master checkers” until the 6th of counting (8/07/09) after the rejection rate passed 12.43%.
Let’s go back and review.
8/06/09 – Rejection rate 13.54%
The next day “master checkers” came in for the first time to look at only the already rejected signatures.
8/07/09 – Rejection rate 11.63%
As a result of “master checkers” look at the already rejected signatures the rejection rate dropped from 13.54% to 11.63%. Then on Monday and Tuesday of the following week “junior checkers” and “master checkers” looked at the already rejected signature AGAIN. That’s FOUR looks at the rejected signatures with FOUR different numbers.
8/11/09 – Rejection rate 10.42%
After looking at the already rejected signatures for a third and fourth time the rejection rate dropped to 10.42%, the lowest level the rejection rate ever been. It is standard for the rejection rate to climb as the counting continues, obviously on 8/06/09 R-71 had no chance of making the ballot and was given three more shots by election officials to lower the rejection rate by only looking at the already rejected signatures three more times.
8/12/09 – Rejection rate 10.65%
8/13/09 – Rejection rate 10.68%
8/14/09 – Rejection rate 10.99%
8/17/09 – Rejection rate 11.03%
8/18/09 – Rejection rate 11.32%
8/19/09 – Rejection rate 11.67%
8/20/09 – Rejection rate 11.97%
From 8/12/09 to 8/20/09 the rejection rate climbed EVERY day. It became clear with a rejection rate heading over the needed amount and with 35.9% of signatures still to be looked at something had to be done. Magically the next day election officials “found” new registration databases. Election officials decide to look at all the already rejected signatures with the new databases over an extended period not the one through way they did on 8/07/009, 8/10/09, and 8/11/09. As a result over the next few days the percent of “registration not found” goes down from 10% on 8/20/09 to 9.38% on 8/28/09.
8/21/09 – Rejection rate 11.68%
Has anyone else noticed election officials decided to change procedures on Fridays (8/07/09 and 8/21/09) when people (like journalists) would leave work for the week and when it became clear this referendum wouldn’t make the ballot?
Also have you noticed how election officials say “this is the way it’s always been done” in response to someone questioning the procedures is what heterosexual-only marriage advocates say to those that want gay couples to have the right to marry?