Pro Referendum 71 group sues over petition signatures

[eridani]

http://www.washblog.com/story/2009/8/27/212153/615

We respect the referendum process and the public's right to vote, but we have been increasingly concerned that, along with other issues our observers have noted with signatures being accepted that in the view of observers should have been rejected, the Secretary of State has accepted thousands of signatures that were not in compliance with State laws related to fraud in the signature-gathering process.

Because of the limited number of signatures turned in, failure to enforce these laws could well lead to a measure being qualified for the ballot that should not be, and that measure has the potential to strip away important protections from thousands of families all across the state. There are domestic partners in every county of the state. They are same sex couples and heterosexual couples where one or both partners is 62 years or older. These couples should not have to worry about whether a partner can take sick leave to care for a loved one who is ill. A firefighter should not have to worry about whether her children will be taken care of if something should happen to her while fighting a fire. These are basic rights and protections that all families should have. Those trying to qualify Referendum 71 for the ballot do not think that families different than theirs should have these protections, so they are trying to overturn the law.

We expect a strong vote in support of the domestic partnership law if it is on the ballot, but we should not put people through the hardship of a statewide campaign and have them go through months of additional worry needlessly. Referendum 71 should only be on the ballot if it has qualified based on legally valid signatures. In order to ensure that it is not put on the ballot in error, we needed to file a legal challenge at this point.

We have waited because we wanted to give the process a chance to work, but we did not want to wait so long as to interfere with the Secretary of State's ability to produce election materials in a timely manner. This motion will be heard on an expedited basis early next week. You can read the pleadings online: http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Pages/R71_Litigation_State.aspx

Meanwhile we need to move full speed ahead with the campaign - the first ballots go out in about 6 weeks!

-Anne Levinson
Chair, WAFST www.approve71.org

[eridani]

1. Legal challenge to R- 71 rejected on technical grounds; but concerns valid, Court says

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2009/09/legal-challenge-to-r-71-rejected-on.html

This morning King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector rejected a legal challenge seeking to block Referendum 71 from being placed on the ballot, determining that Washington Families Standing Together (the plaintiff) had selected the wrong venue to litigate in and that it had filed its legal challenge too soon (before certification of the referendum).

However, the Court's ruling also recognized the legitimacy of Washington Families Standing Together's charges against Secretary of State Sam Reed.

The allegations in the lawsuit are now findings of fact.

Remember, WFST's suit rests on the improper acceptance, by the Secretary of State, of two types of signatures on Referendum 71 petitions:

Signatures of voters who were not registered to vote at the time that they signed a Referendum 71 petition

Signatures on petitions whose circulator did not identify him or herself, and/or did not sign the declaration required by state law

[eridani]

2. Lwsuit refiled

http://www.washblog.com/story/2009/9/3/193050/3721

Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST) has refiled their Referendum 71 challenge in Thurston County Superior Court. Referendum 71 (R-71) asks voters to reject or approve the domestic partnership bill that was passed this spring by a sizable majority of the legislature and signed by the Governor.

On August 27, 2009, WAFST asked King County Superior Court to issue a temporary restraining order against certification of R-71 by the Secretary of State (SOS). The grounds for the request were twofold. First, the SOS had inappropriately accepted petitions where the petition circulator's declaration had been left blank or was "signed" with a stamp of Larry Stickney's signature. Such petitions represented about 36,000 signatures. Second, the SOS accepted signatures from people who were not registered voters when they signed the petition.

On September 2, 2009, King County Superior Court Judge Spector ruled that WAFST was correct regarding the facts. Namely, that unsigned or fraudulently signed petitions were erroneously accepted by the SOS, and that petition signers must be registered voters before signing. However, she also determined that her court had no authority to provide the relief that WAFST sought. The proper venue, she said, is Thurston County Superior Court within 5 days of the SOS certifying the referendum. The SOS certified R-71 on September 2, 2009, and so WAFST has refiling the case accordingly.

Court documents will be posted here as they become available. The Proposed Order for relief is here. A hearing date has not been set

[eridani]

3. Pro Referendum 71 video

Are you looking for a good film for supporting Prop 71. Try this one and share others that you may come across, Take time to get the Equality word out


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ