Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« The Love of Lori Jacobs | The Voice of Mike McGinn »

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Homo Judge Says Referendum 71 Can Move Forward

Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM

This morning, King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector rejected an attempt to keep Referendum 71, which would put the most recent domestic-partnership bill up for a public vote, off the ballot. However, she notes that some of the petition signatures could be rejected and there is opportunity for further litigation.

Pro-gay lobby Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST) had sued the secretary of state's office last week arguing that elections officials erroneously accepted over 30,000 petition signatures (details here). But Spector found that "this court has no authority to prevent the Secretary of State from accepting these petitions in light of their questionable validity." Only after R-71 is certified (which Secretary of State Sam Reed is expected to do today) can a judge consider which signatures may be accepted and which should be disqualified. Furthermore, that challenge may be brought only in Thurston County Superior Court, location of the state capital.

The dispute stemmed from two issues: On the back of each petition sheet, there is an affidavit that the person circulating the petitions must sign, attesting that each sheet contains accurate information and the signers were not offered compensation. But over 30,000 signatures were stamped on the back with name of petition-filer Larry Stickney (who neither signed it himself nor gathered the signatures). In addition, the secretary of state's office accepted signatures from individuals who were not registered to vote at the time they signed, a violation of state law.

In regards to the first claim, Spector notes that "the Secretary of State does have the power to refuse petitions with falsely signed declarations, petitions with blank declarations, and signatures of people who were not yet registered voters." Spector also notes that while some people may register to vote at the time they sign a petition—meaning they aren't registered when they sign the it—"that does not mean it is in accordance with Washington law."

WAFST and other groups will have another shot at keeping R-71 off the ballot. After Reed certifies the petition today, a five-day window will open to the challenge the measure in Thurston County Superior Court.

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

wow
this is great news

Posted by Washington State on September 2, 2009 at 9:49 AM

A righteous punt, keeping it cool.

Posted by gloomy gus on September 2, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Aw, Gary Randall was wrong! She didn't rule against him. Guess his white supremacist websites were wrong.

By the way, why didn't Loveschild comment on Gary Randall linking to white supremacist websites?

Posted by Baconcat on September 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM

inglorious basterds...

Posted by forgot my password on September 2, 2009 at 9:53 AM

3: Because, sharing a common enemy makes it possible to climb in bed with a snake, and trust the snake not to bite them.

Posted by kim in portland

on September 2, 2009 at 10:07 AM

rewind:

to trust the snake not to bite you.

Posted by kim in portland

on September 2, 2009 at 10:08 AM

here's hoping Obama doesn't bite

Posted by Seattlehomo on September 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM

It was a long shot but it is important to remember that we need to continue to challenge this referendum on every front possible. The other side wants to take away the rights of not only LGBT couples but unmarried senior couples who because of pension and other benefits cannot get married. We all need to work hard to protect all Washington Families. Make sure every person you know votes and votes to APPROVE Referendum 71.

Washington Families Standing Together www.wafst.org is working hard but needs your time and money, to ensure a win.

If you are going to Bumbershoot this weekend print out a pledge form and collect names of supportive people, and send them to the campaign. Talk to your friends, families and co-workers about how the Domestic Partnership Bill will affect your family and the families of those you love.

Together we will win this fight.

Posted by Chef Thunder on September 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM

I'll bet they paid for those signatures that were stamped, and the signature gatherers lied to Washington voters saying this would allow gays to get married.

Toss them all.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on September 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM

The headline is kind of misleading.

Judge Specter didn't say the referendum could move forward, only that she lacks jurisdiction to make a legally binding decision to prevent it from moving forward. Then she kicked ass laying out all the reasons why the Thurston County Court could knock this down. A great piece of work by Specter and a brilliant maneuver by WAFST.

Posted by Smartypants on September 2, 2009 at 10:52 AM

I think WAFST waited until it was too late in regards to the stamped/unsigned petitions. The second this was noticed, an injunction should have been filed to prevent the verification of signatures on those petition sheets. Now that the signatures are verified and validated, chances are the courts will overlook the illegal nature of the gathering in favor of the "expressed will of the voters".

Posted by JohnnyC on September 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM

I don't get this, those that went to court had No idea where to file this challenge? Who are these people that would not know to file the challenge in Thurston county? Are these the same people that are going to spear head a campaign to defeat R-71? Will they be spearheading the campaign in Idaho or some where else because they don't know where to throw their punches? Something does not seem right with these WA families standing together.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn on September 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM

@12 WAFST made a good play by challenging this in King County Superior Court first. Now they have a very strong ruling by Spector acknowledging evidence of fraud by Protect Marriage Washington and outlining the road ahead for the challenge in Thurston County. Check out the details of her ruling for yourself.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/stepforward/ar…

Posted by Simply Me on September 2, 2009 at 11:37 AM

So what's the next step?

Posted by Jigae on September 2, 2009 at 12:01 PM

12
We're going to Boycott UTAH goddamit!

We'll teach those R71 BIGOTS!!

Posted by Follow Me, Girls!!!@! on September 2, 2009 at 1:44 PM

@14

Curling up in fetal position on ground.

(standard punkass faggot fighting pose)

Posted by We Mean It This Time! Really!! on September 2, 2009 at 1:46 PM

10

right.

Brilliant.

Great Work.

Good Plan: We'll let them kick us in the nuts until they get tired.

Posted by Every Shitpile has a Silver Lining on September 2, 2009 at 1:49 PM

13
Brilliant.
Let a dyke weigh in on it before the real judges get a crack at it.
They'll love that.

Posted by The Law is a ButtFuck on September 2, 2009 at 1:52 PM

@17

Actually, since Spector's ruling will be part of the petition that goes to the court in Thurston County, the questions she raises -- about the validity of the signatures on the rubber-stamped petitions and from people who weren't registered when they signed -- frames the argument and puts the burden on the signature gathers to demonstrate why their apparent violation of state law (as opposed to the past unchallenged practices of the Secretary of State's office to accept them) should not invalidate tens of thousands of signature.

Posted by Smartypants on September 2, 2009 at 2:26 PM