Judge to rule tommorrow on validity of Ref. 71 signatures

September 1, 4:22 PMSnohomish County Progressive ExaminerChad Shue

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Snohomish County Progressive Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Yesterday in King County Superior Court, Judge Julie Spector heard arguments from the group Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST) and the office of the Secretary of State at the same time the SoS's office was certifying Referendum 71 for the November ballot based on the very petition signatures that were being challenged in that court room.

As I wrote here on Friday, WAFST filed suit to challenge the validity of potentially thousands of names accepted by the SoS on the petitions seeking to place Ref. 71 on the ballot. The suit was based on two alleged violations of state law governing petitions for referendums and initiatives. The first charge has to do with a missing or ineligible signature from the signature gatherer on the back of the petition while the second charge has to do with accepting signatures of people who were not legally registered at the time they signed the petition. In their written argument, the group asserts that on the day the petitions were being turned over to the SoS's office, volunteers were hastily stamping the backs of petitions with a facsimile of Larry Stickney's signature. Stickney is one of the organizers attempting to overturn the newly enacted domestic partnership rights law.

The attorney for the SoS's office, Jeff Even essentially argued the the requirements of the RCWs were vague and referred to an opinion from the Attorney General's office from 2006 that stated that since the word signature did not appear in the statute requiring the signature gatherer to "swear or affirm" that the signatures on the petitions were of legal voters that a signature was not explicitly required. However, apparently seeking to provide a "fall back defense" he qualified his answer by arguing that, "A violation of law by the circulator doesn't invalidate voter signatures." As to the matter of unregistered voters, Even argued (as I had heard from  Brian Zylstra of the SoS's office on Friday) that it was common practice for initiative and referendum signature gatherers to register people to vote as they got people to sign petitions. He added, "We encourage that."

Judge Spector said that she would hand down her ruling on Wednesday. As of this writing, Ref. 71 has cleared the ballot hurdle by close to 1,000 signatures. If Judge Spector rules in favor of WAFST, the referendum would almost certainly fail to meet the required threshold of 120,577 signatures.

Peace,
Chad Shue

Related -  Referendum 71 signatures may face challenge