That's about all so far. They moved a bulletin saying the measure to repeal the latest expansion of gay partnership has collected enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The secretary of state has been going through each signature to make sure they are from registered voters and not duplicates.

Actually the prediction came from Nick Handy, the state elections director. Handy reports that about 85 percent of the signatures have been checked. The sponsors of the measure, which seeks to repeal the latest expansion of gay partnership rights, turned in 137,689 signatures on July 25.

To make the November ballot, petitions must hold 120,577 valid signatures.

Here are the numbers so far: As of Wednesday 117,069 signatures had been checked, 103,198 have been approved and 13,871 have been rejected.

The signature error rate currently is 11.85 percent. The overall rejection rate must not exceed 12.4 percent for R-71 to go on the ballot.

“We have said all along that this signature count will be too close to call, and that is still the case,” Handy said. “We’re not going to announce whether Referendum 71 qualifies or not until all of the signatures are reviewed.”

Handy said public interest in this process is unprecedented.

“Our office has never received so much interest from observers and the public, and never before has the Office of Secretary of State provided daily updates to the public with an opportunity to ask questions and provide reactions on a blog,” Handy said.


Online daily updates about the R-71 signature checking process on its Web site, which can be found here.

In an e-mail to supporters, Faith and Freedom Network president Gary Randall, said Secretary of State Sam Reed is succumbing to pressure by the "homosexual lobby" and speeding up the verification of signatures on Referendum 71.

That speed up, Randall said, is causing the error rate – the percentage of invalid signatures – to rise artificially.

"The hurry-up plan was put in place as the homosexual lobby discovered that the faster the checkers checked, the more names were discarded as not valid," Randall said. He said Reed has expressed bias against social issues and the bad effect they have on success by Republican candidates.

"The liberal culture of Olympia and the Secretary's office for the most part is, I believe, a factor and very well may be the deciding factor on whether R-71 makes the ballot," Randall said.

Backers of the referendum, which seeks to repeal recently expanded gay partnership rights, submitted 137, 689 signatures. And while they only need 120,577 valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot, every referendum campaign has signatures of people who aren't registered voter, whose signature doesn't match what is on file or who signed more than once. If there are too many invalid signatures – at least 17,113 – the measure won't make the ballot.

UPDATE: The Secretary of State's office sent this in response to my request for reaction:

"The Elections Division is pushing back, strongly defending their process as free of bias for either side, and asserting that checkers are using great care and diligence in checking each and every signature – checking and even double-checking and triple-checking in some cases to make sure the process is as fair and even-handed as possible. The check is taking an entire month."

Here is the link to the secretary of state's blog, which includes more detail about the signature verification process.

Here is Randall's e-mail:

=> Read more!

Should voters who sign initiative and referendum petitions be allowed to remain anonymous? Or are petition forms and the names recorded there public records and available for inspection under state open government laws?

Those are the issues in a lawsuit filed by backers of Referendum 71, which seeks to repeal recent expansions in gay partnership rights. Protect Marriage Washington claims that signers would be subject to harassment and even violence if their names were known. They claim their First Amendment rights to petition the government are threatened by disclosure of the names.

The state attorney general will argue to keep the records open because any assertion of privacy by the backers of the referendum are outweighed by the public policy of open government.

The same lawyers are asking the state Public Disclosure Commission to seal the names of donors to the campaign.

The case is Doe v. Reed and is to be heard before U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle on Sept. 3.
Here is the filing by state Deputy Solicitor General James Pharris.

The secretary of state's office continues to examine the signatures submitted to place Referendum 71 on the November ballot. The measure seeks to repeal expansions of gay partnership rights passed during the last legislative session.

Here is a link to the latest report. It shows that if the rate of signature rejection stays where it is now the sponsors will end up with enough valid voter signatures to qualify.

Error rates do change during the process, however, so both sides will continue to monitor the process carefully.

The latest C-3 report from Protect Marriage Washington must have assumed that the group would prevail in its request that it not be required to disclose names of donors.

The report, filed August 10, which shows donors to the campaign for the previous week listed only initials of those who gave money. That's not what state law requires and the Public Disclosure Commission staff has contacted the committee.

"We've asked them to report the actual names," said PDC spokeswoman Lori Anderson.

Last week an attorney representing supporters of R-71, which seeks to repeal enhancements of gay partnership laws passed this year, asked the PDC to exempt disclosure of donors. He asserted there have been threats of violence and harassment against donors (R-71 has already succeeded in sealing the names of those who signed petitions).

The PDC, however, rejected a request for an emergency meeting and scheduled the matter for its regular August 27 meeting. In the meantime, current law prevails which requires the disclosure of donors names and towns.

Signatures on the referendum are still being verified by the secretary of state.

During the discussion of the request by proponents of Referendum 71 to keep secret the names of donors to the campaign, I brought up the last time a similar request was made.

That was in 1994, also surrounding a ballot proposition dealing with gay rights. That year, two initiatives that sought to ban passage of laws giving civil rights protections to gays and lesbians were on the ballot. Opponents, calling themselves Hands Off Washington, asked the PDC for an exemption from disclosure rules.

Opponents were willing to disclose the names and amounts given by donors. But they opposed a recent PDC rule requiring that the occupations and employers of donors also be listed. In January, the PDC passed a temporary exemption – timed to give the Legislature time to address the issue.

The exemption was repealed six weeks later when the Legislature failed to act. Opponents of those initiatives claimed the extra information could lead to harassment and discrimination against donors.

In 1995, the Legislature passed a law eliminating the requirement that donors' occupations and employers be listed. That section, however, was vetoed by then-Gov. Mike Lowry.

Now it is the other side of the issue seeking exemptions from disclosure. Backers of R-71, which would repeal recently passed gay partnership laws, have already succeeded in getting the names of those who signed the referendum sealed. They now seek to have all information about campaign donors sealed as well.

The PDC will meet August 27 to discuss the request.

...but the commission will be happy to take up the issue at it's regular meeting August 27.

A lawyer for the backers of Referendum 71 have asked that the names of all future donors to the campaign be sealed. Not only that, the sponsors are asking that the names on reports already filed with the commission be sealed as well. (See item below).

Threats of violence against backers and sponsors has been cited as the reason for keeping the names secret.

Here's the letter the PDC staff sent to attorney Stephen Pidgeon.

Supporters of Referendum 71, which seeks to repeal the gay partnership laws passed this year by the state Legislature, have asked the state Public Disclosure Commission to block release of the names of donors to the campaign.

In a letter to the commission, R-71 attorney Stephen Pidgeon said threats against backers have been made and more will be exposed if the donor names are released.

"The reason for the emergency request is because of recent threats levied by opponents to the measure against the lives and property of principals involved in this Referendum at any level," Pidgeon wrote.

He included several e-mails and web posting that include threats of violence.

Backers have already received a temporary court order barring release of the names of those who signed the referendum.

There is slight precedence for blocking campaign finance information. In 1994, the commission released a group called Hands Off Washington from including the occupations and employers of those who donated to the campaign. The group was formed to oppose two initiatives that would have prevented the Legislature from passing laws giving civil rights protections based on sexual orientation.

Here is Pidgeon's letter:

=> Read more!

Had I been good at math, I'd be a doctor or something. So, for now at least, I'm gonna let state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, explain why he thinks Referendum 71 may end up failing to make the ballot.

The referendum seeks to put before voters the issue of changing laws regarding gay partnerships – the so-called everything-but-marriage law.

Backers of the referendum (opponents of the partners law) turned in 137,689 signatures of voters. They need to have 120,577 valid signatures to make the November ballot. The secretary of state's office is now verifying the signatures to make sure they are from registered voters and are not duplicates.

That has left backers and opponents to speculate as to whether there are enough valid signatures. And they read the tea leaves of daily counts of valid vs. invalid signatures to feed the speculation.

Here is today's analysis by Murray:

Statement from Sen. Ed Murray on R-71 signature count

The current rate of invalid signatures reported by the Secretary of State’s office in the R-71 signature count gives me great hope that the referendum won’t make the ballot.

However, there’s a bit of confusion out there about how the count is trending because of an inconsistency in the math used to report the rate.

The Secretary of State’s blog first reported that the error rate had to stay under 14.2 percent for the referendum to qualify – referred to as ‘the cushion.’

That cushion was derived by dividing the number of signatures turned in (137,689) by the number needed to qualify (120,577) and subtracting 1.

With the cumulative invalid rate of 13.3 percent as of Wednesday, many have been led to believe that the referendum supporters are within their cushion.

“This is wrong.

That because in its subsequent reporting of the daily signature check, the Secretary of State’s blog reversed its math, dividing the number of signatures verified by the number examined.

It’s confusing when one method is used to determine the overall rates and the opposite method is used in the daily reports.

If the Secretary of State’s blog had first used the math that it is using now, it would have divided the total they need to verify (120,577) by the total number they will count (137,689) --and, again, subtracted 1 -- for a maximum invalid rate of 12.4 percent.

Or, if the Secretary of State’s blog were still using the math it began with, the current error rate would be 15.4 percent, rather than 13.3 percent.

We know that 15.4 percent is higher than 14.2 percent, and 13.3 percent is higher than 12.4 percent.

Either way, when consistent methods are used, the current rate of invalid signatures clearly suggests that R-71 won’t make the ballot.

Dave Ammons at SecState's office sends an update on petition signature checks for Referendum 71. He notes the error rate is still fairly low, with a couple percentage points as a buffer.

I put in bold face the reason for the bad signatures: Most simply are not registered to vote. A lesson to be learned there.

FYI: State Election workers, on the second day of checking signatures for Referendum 71, have now processed over 11,000 names, and the campaign's error rate continues at a low 12.31 percent level.

As of close of business Monday, 11,502 signatures have been checked, and 10,087 have been accepted and 1,415 have been rejected, mostly because the person does not show up on the voter rolls. Teresa Glidden, supervisor of the initiatives and referendum desk, notes that the error rate will vary somewhat from day to day. The petitions are checked in no particular order and a future batch may have a better or worse error rate.

The important number to remember is that referendum sponsors need 120,577 valid signatures to earn a place on the November ballot. That is equal to 4 percent of the total vote for governor last fall. Sponsors submitted 137,689 signatures on July 25.

R-71 sponsors are seeking a statewide public vote this fall on Washington's new "everything but marriage" law that expands rights and privileges of state-registered domestic partners so that they are equal to those of opposite-gender married couples.

The bill, Senate Bill 5688, ordinarily would have taken effect July 26, but is on hold while the referendum sponsored by foes is pending. The signature-by-signature check began last Friday.

Two groups, WhoSigned.org and the Washington Coalition for Open Government, have requested copies of the petitions, but the sponsors have a federal court order blocking the Secretary of State from releasing the public records until a full hearing is held on Sept. 3 in Tacoma.

David Ammons
Communications Director
Office of Secretary of State

I gotta think Tim Eyman has good reason to bring this to light.

I sent Charles Hasse an e-mail, asking him why the parent organization for the Washington Education Association wants copies of the Initiative 1033 petitions.

Eyman is suggesting the NEA wants to publish all the names on line. Hence, the reference to Whosigned.org.

(Dave Ammons at Secretary of State office confirmed the exchange of e-mails between Hasse and SOS folks is authentic.)

UPDATE: (2:20 p.m.) Hasse called me right away. He said "it was a fairly routine request." The National Education Association, where he now works, routinely takes a closer look at ballot measures from around the country, looking for fraud or other improprieties in the collection of signatures on initiative, referendum and recall petitions.

Hasse was president of the Washington Education Assocation from 2001-07. He's been "ballot measure strategist" for the NEA for almost two years.

"I'm certainly not alleging anything," he said. "I hope he has nothing to hide." But "there may be some reforms" that could be made in Washington state in the initiative process, he said. The NEA takes an interest in any ballot measure that could affect its members, as I-1033 would by constraining overall tax collections. The NEA is particularly interested in any measure that has paid signature gatherers, he said.

"The industry is rife with fraud and forgery," he said. "We have the same interest as others do, that measures that are on the ballot belong there."

Here's what Eyman sent out earlier today, followed by an e-mail from one of his supporters to Hasse:

July 30, 2009

To: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state (cc'd to the media, house & senate members, and Governor)

=> Read more!