Wash. releases names on anti-gay rights petition

[w8liftinglady]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/17/ap/business/main20121657.shtml

AP) OLYMPIA, Wash. — Washington state officials on Monday released copies of signature petitions that forced a vote on a 2009 domestic partnership law, disclosing the names of signers after a judge rejected arguments that supporters could be harassed.

The Washington State Archives provided a DVD to The Associated Press showing the 138,000 signatures for Referendum 71. The release came despite an attorney's vow to appeal the ruling and seek temporary protection from the disclosure of names.

Gary Randall, a spokesman for the group Protect Marriage Washington, said he thought it was terrible that the state released the names.

"I believe there will certainly be harassment, and I pray to God there isn't more than that," he said.

Referendum 71 asked voters to approve or reject a domestic partnership law approved by lawmakers and signed by the state's Democratic governor. The law granted registered domestic partners additional state rights previously given only to married couples.

It was scheduled to go into effect in July 2009, but the referendum campaign sponsored by conservative Christian groups put it on hold. Voters that November approved it with 53 percent of the vote — the first time any state's voters have approved a gay equality measure at the ballot box.

[customerserviceguy]

1. Well, this should slow down the initiative process in WA

A precident has been set, and it will have an effect on anything highly controversial that might eminate from Washington State. Too bad, it's been a good place for progressive ideas that normally can't get through a legislature.

[eridani]

3. This has jackshit to do with free speech.

An initiative is not a mere assertion of opinion--it is an attempt to make laws that apply to everybody. No one should, under any circumstances, be allowed to make laws in secret. We certainly don't allow our elected representatives to hide their votes.

[customerserviceguy]

4. The initiative signature gathering process

does not make law, it is only a step along the way. However, the secret ballots used to make initiatives into actual law really does hide those who ultimately support anti-progressive ideas, but I suppose that's different, right?

Want to sign a petition that restores union rights to state workers? Hope your boss at your non-union job doesn't get hold of that signature.

[eridani]

8. Yes, a secret ballot is different. Without signature gathering, there is no

--initiative. People who want to make laws affecting me should not be allowed to do it in secret.

[customerserviceguy]

9. I remember one of the teaching assistants

from my college days who was fighting to keep initiative signatures secret. Only it was 1975, and the initiative was on the subject of gay rights, and he was gay.

My point is, this will undermine support for controversial legislation that often comes from a reliably blue state like Washington. If you signed Initiative 1000 (Death with Dignity Act) back in 2008, would you expect to keep your job as a dishwasher at a Catholic hospital or high school? Might you refuse to sign if you thought you'd get some flack from your Catholic relatives?

As long as the election is public, I don't care if the signatures are protected, especially in the case of an attempted initiative that either doesn't get the required signatures or the ballot box approval.

We may have to use the initiative process to remove the stain of homophobia from some state constitutions, thank goodness Washington State never went down that path.

[eridani]

11. I have proudly signed on initiatives that I believe in, regardless of

--what my employer thinks about them.

[customerserviceguy]

13. Glad you have that luxury

Many people feel they don't, and this decision will keep signature gathering down, and not just for reich-wing initiatives.

[eridani]

18. Initiatives organized by PEOPLE and not corporations are very hard to do

The reichwing ones probably have fakes that spot-checks don't catch. If I saw my name on an anti-gay initiative, I'd do something about it.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Think the corporations

are going to start a marijuana legalization initiative? I don't.

[eridani]

20. Tthat's exactly my point. Nothing good comes from corporate initiatives

--or those sponsored by religious whackjobs. They are the ones most likely to be collecting fake signatures.

[customerserviceguy]

21. Again, my point is

Progressive legislation that previously started in (or got a boost from) Washington State will be chilled, as people who know their petition signatures will be available to their bosses, co-workers and family decline to sign intiative petitions.

As for "fake" signatures, the verification process and subsequent tossing out of a percentage of nonvalidated signatures means that corporate-sponsored initiatives need to get a hell of a lot of "real" signatures to have a ghost of a chance of winding up on the WA ballot. Who explained all this to me? Sam Reed, the Secretary of State of Washington, who was a personal acquaintence of mine back when I lived and worked in the Olympia, WA area.

[eridani]

23. I don't agree. The only "chilling" factor for progressive legislation

--is lack of money.

[customerserviceguy]

24. Lack of money is indeed a factor

I'm not denying that. But Tim Eyman didn't have any trouble getting signatures for his tax-limiting measures because people might have been embarassed if their names ever came out. Not everybody is an unabashed progressive like you are.

[chollybocker]

2. I suspect that there are a lot of fraudulent signatures on those lists.

People will see their names on it and say, "I signed what???!" And some other names will be of dead people and family pets. Just a hunch.

[customerserviceguy]

6. There's a verification process

A random sampling of initiative signatures is compared to a database of registered voters, and the resultant percentage is applied to the effort as a whole.

For instance, if 1,000 signatures are checked, and 20% of them are not found on the voter rolls, then 20% of all signatures submitted are considered void. This is why every initiative signature drive I've ever seen always tries to greatly overshoot the number nominally needed to validate an initiative for the ballot.

[chollybocker]

15. Forensic accounting is not a true audit.

We should be counting every vote. And counting every penny.

Forenics is the new refuge of cheaters.

[customerserviceguy]

22. Random sampling is a reliable means of testing signatures

It is absolutely impractical to verify 100% of signatures. You call it "forensics", I call it statistics, which is a fully legitimate branch of mathematics.

In any case, initiatives either fail to meet the test significantly, or go way over it, practically all of the time. Do you feel the same sort of need for certainty when it comes to photo ID for voters?

[SeattleVet]

10. That's exactly what happened to me several years ago.

I got a letter from some NY City official thanking me for signing a petition that would have kept a shelter out of a Queens neighborhood. Only problem was that I never even saw (or knew about) that petition, and would definitely not have signed it anyway. I wrote back and told him, and got a photocopy of the page of the petition that contained my 'signature'. Obviously wrong, with an incorrect middle initial, and another 3 people that 'lived' with me. It was obvious that all of the signatures on that page were done by the same person.

I'd like to see the lists of names for all of these initiatives. Tim Eyman's paid signature gatherers have a financial incentive to have a *lot* of people sign his stuff. I'd be curious to see which of his things I've 'signed'.

[chollybocker]

16. There are lots of videos and instances

of anti-gay petition booth workers intentionally misleading people into signing a list they are led to believe is anti-pedophilia, anti-puppy kicking, etc. They will lie to your face for their sick agenda.

[NMMNG]

5. Hooray for transparency

The anti-gays are fond of proclaiming they're standing up for their deeply held beliefs. If they're to cowardly to do it in the open they obviously don't hold those beliefs deeply enough.

[William769]

7. K&R.

[Muskypundit]

12. "I believe there will certainly be harassment, and I pray to God there isn't more than that," he sai

Those gays. Known for their violent fits of rage and aggression.

[Zorra]

14. Can we get a copy? We should post the names here, and help to out the bigots. nt

[NMMNG]

25. My wife ran a database

including all of the donors to Prop8, Amendment 2 (FL), Prop 102 (AZ) and others going back to 1998. It got little attention or support. After pouring three years of intensive effort and only receiving occasional hate mail from bigots in response she finally gave up on it.

[chollybocker]

17. Also, why do they *really* want to hide these lists?

The idea that gay people are "attacking" religious fundies is just another big fat ludicrous lie. Historically, straight people bash gay people. Look it fucking up.

FEAR is their only mantra. I don't think they can even help themselves; they just HATE HATE HATE.