OK. Here's what's at issue: The petitions on which Initiative 1029 were printed say the measure will be submitted to the Legislature. Yet, I-1029 actually will be submitted to voters at the November general election if supporters turn in enough valid signatures next week. (That would be 224,880.)

Does that mean the 300,000 people who purportedly signed the petitions were misled? After all, what they signed is not going to the Legislature. It's going straight to the ballot.

Dave Ammons, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, said earlier today that state elections officials will accept the flawed petitions for turn-in because it's not a big mistake. But that may not be the final word on the matter.

The Washington Supreme Court recently held Tim Eyman to a very high standard when it came to Initiative 747. The Supremes threw out I-747, which limited annual property tax collection increases to no more than 1 percent, because the petitions did not accurately state current law. They were printed wrong because the law changed between the time of printing and the public vote.

Eyman's people say they have to dot their "i"s and cross their "t"s, but they think the SEIU, backers of the I-1029, only have to dot their "i"s.

Eddie Agazarm, partner for Citizen Solutions Inc, a signature-gathering firm often hired by Eyman, said SEIU Local 775 spokesman Adam Glickman may have to eat some of the words he wrote to Agazarm in an exchange of e-mails during the past legislative session.

The Service Employees International Union was pushing for a bill that would have forced the state to throw out all initiative signatures if the person who collected the signatures failed to sign the petition.

"There are plenty of existing reasons voter’s valid signatures are excluded," Glickman wrote. "If the sponsor prints petitions on the wrong size paper, otherwise valid signatures don’t count. If the sponsor fails to print the correct warning on the petition otherwise valid signatures don’t count. If the sponsor fails to accurately print the title or summary or initiative text on the petition otherwise valid signatures don’t count."

"These are simply rules that were established that everyone follows. The rule we’re proposing adding – that the petitioner sign a statement on the back of the petition – is no different or more radical than any of the other existing rules that govern signature gathering."

Now, it looks as if I-1029 petitions were printed with the wrong language on them. And the Secretary of State isn't the final word on this. The Supreme Court justices are, if it were to come to their attention.

I wonder what the coalition that is opposed to I-1029 will do now?

Here's the full exchange of e-mails between Glickman and Agazarm:

[More:]

On Tue, 1/22/08, Adam Glickman .Glickman@seiu775.org> wrote:

From: Adam Glickman .Glickman@seiu775.org>
Subject: RE: Adam .... can we count on you to support SB-6612
To: "Edward Agazarm"
Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2008, 7:24 AM

There are plenty of existing reasons voter’s valid signatures are excluded. If the sponsor prints petitions on the wrong size paper, otherwise valid signatures don’t count. If the sponsor fails to print the correct warning on the petition otherwise valid signatures don’t count. If the sponsor fails to accurately print the title or summary or initiative text on the petition otherwise valid signatures don’t count.

These are simply rules that were established that everyone follows. The rule we’re proposing adding – that the petitioner sign a statement on the back of the petition – is no different or more radical than any of the other existing rules that govern signature gathering.

For you to suggest otherwise and take such a strong position again petitioners signing the back of the petition can only mean that you and Tim Eyman don’t want to expose fraud in the system. I can’t think of any other valid reason to oppose it.

Adam

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Edward Agazarm [mailto:edward97212@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:35 PM
To: Adam Glickman
Subject: RE: Adam .... can we count on you to support SB-6612

Adam .... there is no reason on earth why a voter ' s valid signature should be excluded from a petition. All the add ons in bill 2019 are fine except that they could or would throw away a voter ' s valid signature. It ' s fine to have civil penalties, or, even criminal, against those who break election laws .... it ' s not fine however to throw away a voters valid signature. Ever.

Never confuse me with Angelo. I still work in Oregon on occasion. I qualified Measure 33 in 2004 using all hourly paid gatherers, and grass-root volunteers. I testified against two of our employee ' s, who committed fraud, at the Multnomah Grand Jury.

My signature drive was so tight and well trained in Oregon , I earned an endorsement from the Union supported "Voter Education Project ' s" Patty Wentz.

You might speak with Angelo, who has never worked in Oregon since measure 26 passed, ask him to provide written testimony in suppport 2019. Where is his alleged support? I didn ' t hear it in committee.

There is nothing modest about throwing away someone ' s quasi-vote. That is a very radical concept and not in line with Washington ' s constitution.

Eddie

Well, since we testified in support of 2019, and this is diametrically opposed to that, I’m not sure why you think we’d support it. I don’t really understand what “reasonable” change this includes – it doesn’t actually change anything but simply would pre-empt 2019.

I’m disappointed – I got the sense from the hearing that like Angelo you might be willing to support modest actual reforms, but apparently not.

Adam

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Edward Agazarm [mailto:edward97212@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:36 PM
To: Adam Glickman
Subject: Adam .... can we count on you to support SB-6612

Hello Adam ...........

SB 6612, provides for reasonable, constitutional, and meaningful changes to Washington ' s initiative law.

Despite the fact that SB 6612, contains no loophole for the Unions, I hope we can count on your passionate support and testimony in support.

Edward Agazarm