Washington Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities, Referendum 71 (2009)
The Washington Domestic Partner Rights Bill, also known as Referendum 71, was on the November 3, 2009 ballot in Washington as a veto referendum, where it was approved, thus upholding the legislation. The measure expanded the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded to state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
|Washington Referendum 71 (2009)|
Election results via: Washington Secretary of State
Text of measure
The language appeared on the ballot as:
|“||The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.
This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be: [ ] Approved [ ] Rejected
A fiscal impact statement was included in the 2009 Voters' Guide. The fiscal impacts of Initiative 985 are described as follows:
|“||Referendum 71 would enact legislation, E2SSB 5688, that expands the rights, responsibilities and benefits of registered domestic partners. Referendum 71 would increase state costs by paying for additional worker compensation and crime victim claims benefits; additional state employee pension survivor benefits; and other administrative expenses. Costs are estimated at $900,000 for fiscal years 2009–11, $1.5 million for fiscal years 2011–13 and $1.6 million for fiscal years 2013–15. State revenue from estate taxes estimated at $260,000 would be reduced in fiscal years 2013–15, while $7,000 in annual fee revenue would be gained.||”|
Washington Families Standing Together, WhoSigned.Org and Equal Rights Washington led the campaign in favor of the measure. Business firms and organizations that supported the measure included: Boeing, Microsoft, Nike, Puget Sound Energy and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, Washington State Bar Association and the Washington Association of Churches endorsed the campaign. On September 28, 2009, the Seattle City Council approved a resolution urging residents to approve the measure.
The following reasons were given in support of Referendum 71 in the Washington 2009 Voters' Guide:
|“||The Domestic Partnership Law Protects All Washington Families
This law ensures that all Washington families have the same protections, rights, and responsibilities as their neighbors. The law guarantees that all families will be treated fairly, especially in times of crisis. Many gay and lesbian couples, often with children, and many senior couples are domestic partners. Often these seniors can’t marry without sacrificing needed health and pension benefits. Domestic partnership laws allow them to protect their loved ones.
“This law provides essential protections to many older couples and to families with children who would otherwise be living without a safety net.”
What is included in the Domestic Partnership law?
Who supports the law?
More than 150 organizations, including congregations and faith based organizations and their leaders, all across our state – like the Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Association of Churches, AAUW, Childhaven, Washington State Senior Citizens’ Lobby, Associated Ministries of Pierce County, Asian and Pacific Islander Women and Family Safety Center, Jewish Family Service, Anti -Defamation League, Washington Education Association, Planned Parenthood, Japanese American Citizens League, Lutheran Public Policy Network, SEIU, Latino Political Action Committee, American Federation of Teachers, King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Safe Schools Coalition, Mainstream Republicans, Equal Rights Washington, PFLAG, Young Democrats of Washington, Washington State Bar Association.
They, and we, ask you to vote APPROVED on R 71 - for ALL Washington families.
The arguments in favor of Referendum 71 were prepared by:
- Kelly Fox, President, Washington State Council of Fire Fighters
- Denise Klein, Executive Director, Senior Services
- Linnea Hirst, President, League of Women Voters of Washington
- Paola Maranan, Executive Director, Children’s Alliance
- James Kelly, CEO, Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle
- Audrey Haberman, Executive Director, Pride Foundation
The top eight donors to Washington Families Standing Together were:
- Coie Perkins: $275,363
- Pyramid Communications: $102,051
- Microsoft: $100,000
- Human Rights Campaign Approve Ref 71 PAC: $78,500
- American Civil Liberties Union of Washington: $49,014
- Pride Foundation: $36,353
- Fuse Washington: $30,145
- Equal Rights Washington: $25,679
The following reasons were given in opposition to Referendum 71 in the Washington 2009 Voters' Guide:
|“||Reject Senate Bill 5688 to Preserve Marriage!
SB 5688 is primarily about homosexual marriage - not benefits.
Senator Ed Murray told the Seattle Times (Jan. 10, 2007), when announcing the Domestic Partnership Bill, “The goal is marriage equality. It's an important statement that our eyes are on the prize, and the prize is marriage." Representative Jamie Pederson told the Times (Jan. 28, 2009) that SB 5688 will give homosexuals “a bridge until they can legally marry.”
Senator Murray told the Times (May 17, 2009) that the domestic partnership expansion (SB 5688) is an “incremental approach…a strategic plan.”
SB 5688 is the last incremental step to same-sex marriage in Washington State.
Reject Senate Bill 5688 to Protect Families!
Marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation for civilized societies and has been for centuries. Marriage does not exist just for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals, but for the greater good of the social order. Marriage is about providing the most stable and healthy environment in which to raise children.
Reject Senate Bill 5688 to Protect Children!
SB 5688 redefines terms such as “husband” and “wife” to be construed as “gender neutral.” The new law will confuse children and likely result in public schools influencing children to accept a new definition of the “family unit” so that same-sex partners will be a recognized norm.
Reject Senate Bill 5688 to Protect Taxpayers!
If Senate Bill 5688 is implemented, it will mean another massive expansion of government and Washingtonian taxpayers will be stuck with a multi-million dollar bill. Now is not the time to provide more entitlements to a very small minority of the population.
The arguments against Referendum 71 were prepared by:
- Larry Stickney, Campaign Manager, Protect Marriage Washington
- Gary Randall, President, Faith and Freedom Network
- Matt Shea, Representative (R), 4th Legislative District, Washington State Legislature
- Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S.
$494,892 was reported as raised in opposition to Referendum 71.
The top five donors to the campaign against the referendum were:
- Family Policy Institute of Washington: $200,000
- James Bopp: $126,508
- Bryant Adams: $12,725
- Stephen Pidgeon: $10,000
- National Organization for Marriage: $10,000
Media editorial positions
- The Stranger said, "A vote to approve R-71 is a vote to uphold the domestic-partnership bill. If passed, it gives the state's 6,000 registered couples the right to take leave from work to care for a critically ill partner, the right for public-sector employees to share pension benefits with their partners, and dozens of other rights that straight couples enjoy—and all committed partners deserve."
- The Seattle Times said, "We strongly endorse voter passage — mark "approved" on the ballot — of a bill that expands rights for registered domestic partners. Ignore the hyperbolic scare campaign against this measure."
- The Olympian said, "The Olympian's editorial board offers an unqualified endorsement of equal rights for same-sex domestic partners."Cite error: Closing
Path to the ballot
Signature validity count
During the signature verification process, the Washington Secretary of State's office maintained a website that displayed a fresh count each weekday of the status of the process of verifying R-71 signatures.
As of September 2, 137,881 signatures had been reviewed. Over 122,007 of them had been accepted as valid.
87.6% of the signatures had to be valid in order for the measure to qualify for the ballot or, conversely, the invalidity rate couldn't go over 12.4%.
|Date||Signatures checked||Signatures accepted||Rate of invalidity||Citation|
|120,577 required||Can't exceed 12.4%|
Description of checking process
Video explaining the signature verification process
At the office of the Washington Secretary of State, each signature on the R-71 petition went through three stages of checking.
- First-line checkers examined each name to see if it is on the state's list of 3.7 million registered voters state. They then compare the signature on the petition to the signature on the voter's voter-registration card. Signatures are rejected at this stage if the name can't be found on the list of registered voters.
- On the second round, rejected signatures got a second look by more experienced checkers.
- On the third round, new signature checkers were added who used the live statewide voter database to try to locate signers who may have registered more recently and weren't in the database from June 19.
People in favor of R-71 and opposed to R-71 are allowed to observe the process. The rules governing these observers are;
- Three observers from each side are allowed in the counting room at one time.
- Observers aren't supposed to interact with checkers.
- Observers aren't supposed to write down names or addresses of petition signers.
- If observers have concerns about a signature, they are allowed to make a note for themselves of where the signature appears on the petition so that later on, they have this information for launching a signature challenge.
Supporter concerns about process
As the signature verification process unfolded, R-71 supporters expressed these concerns about the way the signatures were collected:
- They say that some signature checkers wear headphones while they work, which could be a distraction.
- Signature-collecting staff has sped up the count, which they think has led to signatures being rejected that should have been accepted.
- Signature supervisors have rolled their eyes when concerns are expressed.
Opponent concerns about process
Opponents of R-71 being on the ballot say that:
- It is possible that thousands of signatures that signature-checkers say are valid, are in fact not valid.
- Opponents argue that observers, those who initiated the referendum, violated the rules that observers are supposed to follow.
Notable features of petition drive
The petition drive to qualify R-71 for the ballot was notable for several reasons:
- It attracted a Decline to Sign campaign against it.
- A website, WhoSigned.Org, was created to publish the names of anyone who signs the petition.
- The petition form itself was approximately 2x3 feet in dimension. This is because the petition form had to include every word of the statute petitioners were seeking to overturn (SB 5688), and SB 5688 is 114 pages long.
- KnowThyNeighbor.org said that they plan to publish all the names and addresses listed on Referendum 71 petition sheets on the Internet.
Newly registered voters
An area of contention in what counts as a valid signature has to do with newly-registered voters.
Some background facts:
- In Washington, there is no date on the petition forms. Thus, it is not possible to know with certainty when a petition signer signed a petition.
- The policy that the Washington Secretary of State's office is taking is that if a voter is registered to vote as of the day that the voter's signature is checked, the signature counts. They say, ."..initiative and referendum gatherers typically carry voter registration forms with them and this promotes voter registration. At the time of the signature check, we know whether the person is a validly registered voter in the state of Washington. We support the policy behind this. The only signatures that are counted for the petition are signatures of validly registered voters."
- The office also has said, "There is no deadline for registering to vote for purposes of qualifying an initiative or referendum; as a practical matter, the deadline is the date that the signature on the petition is checked. Checkers are instructed that a signature on a petition is valid if they find a person with the same name in the voter registration file, and the signature on the petition matches the signature in the voter registration file. The registration date has never been a limiting factor."
Some observers have suggested that this procedure may become the subject of a lawsuit challenging some of the validated signatures.
Doe v. Reed
- See also: Doe v. Reed
- At the request of Protect Marriage Washington, federal judge Benjamin Settle issued a temporary restraining order on July 29, 2009 to halt the public release of a list of those who signed the R-71 petition. Supporters of R-71 said in their TRO request that releasing the identity of petition signers might put those signers at risk of harassment, leading to a situation where their First Amendment rights are chilled. A hearing on whether to make the TRO permanent took place on September 3, 2009.
- On August 12, 2009 the Washington Public Disclosure Commission ruled that the names of donors to Protect Marriage Washington are a matter of public record.
- On September 10, 2009 federal judge Benjamin Settle maintained the restraining order on the signatures. State officials, were therefore, not permitted to release the names of those who signed the petitions.
- On September 18, 2009 the state appealed the Judge Settle's ruling in early September. The case was scheduled for an October 14 hearing with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
- On October 15, 2009 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to reverse the decision made by U.S. District Judge Ben Settle.
- Later that day R-71 opponents announced that they plan to appeal the Court of Appeals decision.
- On October 19, 2009, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily blocked state officials from releasing any names on Referendum 71 petitions.
- The United States Supreme Court ruled on October 20, 2009 to uphold the ban on releasing petition signatures. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the issue, and it is unclear whether it will.
- On June 24, 2010 the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 enforcing Washington's Public Records Act; making petition signatures public.
- On July 20, 2010 anti-gay marriage activists renewed their efforts to ban the release of R-71 petitions. The case was temporarily dismissed. According to reports, they can refile once the United States Supreme Court releases the case back to the U.S. District Court in Tacoma.
- On August 11, 2010 U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle denied a request by the state to immediately release the petition names. However, Judge Settle agreed to putting the case on a fast track. Both parties had 10 days to provide lists of their witnesses; 60 days for discovery; and 45 days for briefings.
- On September 7, 2010, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks lifted the ban on releasing initiative petitions under the state’s Public Records Act. His decision, however did not allow the release of Referendum 71 petitions.
- U.S. District Court in Tacoma heard the case on October 3, 2011. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle is expected to rule on the case in two weeks. He will determine whether R-71 petitions should be permanently sealed from public access.
- On October 17, 2011 U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that the R-71 petitions can be released. Settle said, disclosure would become the exception, rather than the rule, if just a few instances of harassment were used as the standard for preventing the release of names. Later that day, Washington State officials released copies of petitions.
- October 21, 2011 - Protect Marriage filed a notice to appeal the October 17 ruling by U.S. District Judge Settle. As of October 20, the state had released 34 DVDs of the petition signatures but announced they would suspend any further release.
- October 24, 2011 - the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary injunction on the release of petitions.
- November 8 - Judge Settle rejected a motion to block the public release of Referendum 71 petitions while Protect Marriage Washington appealed the October ruling.
- November 16, 2011 - the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request to further block the release of petition signatures.
- On November 21, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request made to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to block the release of petitions
Campaign finance lawsuit
- On October 21, 2009, Family PAC filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in Tacoma. Family PAC is requesting that the court allow the PAC to accept contributions of more than $5,000 and to be exempt from disclosing donor's names. According to campaign finance laws in Washington, no contributions over $5,000 may be made during the 21-day period prior to the election. The group has not yet registered with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.
- On October 27, 2009, Judge Ronald Leighton denied the request made by Family PAC. A full hearing date regarding the campaign finance challenge has not yet been set.
- See also: Polls, 2009 ballot measures
- A poll conducted October 14 – 26 by the Washington Poll revealed that 56% of voters planned to vote in favor of Referendum 71, while 39% were opposed and 5% were undecided. They polled 724 registered voters. The margin of error is reported to be +/- 3.6%.
- On September 28, 2009 the Washington Secretary of State's blog "From Our Corner" announced that an Elway Poll by independent pollster Stuart Elway revealed that 46% of voters planned to vote "yes," while 41% planned to vote no on R-71.
- On September 23, 2009 Approve 71, a campaign in favor of Referendum 71, released polling data in late September 2009 that revealed that 51% of voters planned to vote "yes," while 44% planned to vote "no." The poll was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR).
- The Washington Poll released polling results for 2006-2008 on September 2, 2009. According to their report polling results revealed that the number of voters in favor of domestic partnership rights has increased by 8% in two years. On the other hand, the number of voters against domestic partnership rights has decreased by 5% from 2006-2008.
- KING5/SurveyUSA conducted a survey of 1,050 adults between October 3-October 5. The poll showed R-71 ahead by 3% points, with 13% of those surveyed undecided.
|Date of Poll||Pollster||In favor||Opposed||Undecided/Other|
|September 2009||Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR)||51%||44%||4%|
|September 2009||Elway Poll||46%||41%||13%|
|October 2009||Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR)||53%||36%||11%|
|Oct. 3 - 5||KING5/Survey USA||45%||42%||13%|
|Oct. 14 – 26||Washington Poll||56%||39%||5%|
Articles on the campaign
- Federal judge strikes down contribution limits on Washington ballot issues
- Same-sex marriage measures raised over $100 million in 2008
- Washington's domestic partnership law goes into effect today
Articles on the signature count
Articles on signature privacy issues
- Washington R-71 petition release halted
- Washington State releases Referendum 71 petitions following ruling
- Washington's Referendum 71 petition signature debate continues
- Washington signature privacy trial will be heard in September
- Eyman signature privacy case dismissed, R-71 challenge returns to court in 2011
- Ruling releases Washington initiative petitions
- SCOTUS rules R-71 petition signatures can be made public
- 18 states announce support to keep citizen petitions as open records
- SCOTUS hearing scheduled for R-71 signature privacy case
- Supreme Court agrees to hear R-71 signature privacy case
- Eyman privacy case awaits Referendum 71 ruling
- SCOTUS upholds R-71 ban on petition names
- Supreme Court Justice temporary blocks R-71 names
- R-71 signature privacy case continues
- Washington Court of Appeals lifts ban on R-71 petitions
- R-71 returns to court regarding signature privacy
- Signatures on R-71 will remain private for now
- Federal judge maintains ban on R-71 petition release
- Federal judge grants signature privacy TRO
- Washington R-71 donor names to be made public
Articles on lawsuits
- Washington's high court dismisses R-71 challenge
- Washington judge rejects increase of donor limit
- Washington finance campaign law to be discussed in court
- Washington R-71 lawsuit dismissed a second time
- Superior Court judge dismisses R-71 challenge but states concerns about signatures
- Text of Referendum 71 application
- Washington Referendum 71 Election Results
- Text of SB 5688
- Website of "Protect Marriage Washington," supporters of overturning SB 5688
- Washington Ballot Measures Online Voter Guide 2009
- WhoSigned, group opposing R-71
- Washington Secretary of State blog, which maintains a count on signature validity.
- Referendum 71 Litigation in State Court
- Oral ruling by Judge Thomas McPhee, 9-8-09
- Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner,"Nearly 10,000 domestic partnerships registered in WA," February 2, 2012
- Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner,"R-71 petitions: Attorneys press case to high court," March 25, 2010
- The Olympian,"Voters should have right to privacy when signing," January 6, 2010
- The Daily News,"Dozens at rally urge rejection of Referendum 71," November 1, 2009
- Los Angeles Times,"Gay marriage fight fuels debate over petitioners' rights," October 25, 2009
- Herald Net,"Voters to settle issue of rights for same-sex couples," October 18, 2009
- Lake Stevens Journal, "R-71 signature battle heads to federal appeals court; Eyman seeks to block other releases," October 15, 2009
- Herald Net,"R-71 signature case likely to spill past election," October 13, 2009
- KOMO News,"Views clash at R-71 forum," October 13, 2009
- The Daily Evergreen,"R-71 battle concerns every family," October 12, 2009
- Townhall,"Marriage issue in Wash. tight in polls," September 25, 2009
- Seattle PostGlobe,"Mallahan urges support for R-71 gay domestic partnership measure ," September 24, 2009
- Advocate,"Poll: Referendum 71 Vote Will Be Close," September 23, 2009
- From Our Corner: Washington Secretary of State,"Reed certifies R-71 to fall ballot," September 2, 2009
- California Catholic Daily,"Marriage Advocates Collect Enough Signatures for Washington State Ballot," September 2, 2009
- KPLU,"Battle Heats Up Over Voter Petitions," August 5, 2009
- Office of the Secretary of State, "2009 Voters Pamphlet," accessed September 6, 2013
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- The Seattle Times, "Approval of Referendum 71 attracts broad community support," September 24, 2009
- On Top Magazine, "Seattle Urges Approval Of Gay Partner Law," September 29, 2009
- Follow the Money, "Referendum 71: Legal Domestic Partnerships," accessed September 6, 2013
- The Stanger, "2009 Endorsements," October 15, 2009
- The Seattle Times, "Seattle Times election endorsements," October 30, 2009
- Office of the Secretary of State, "History of Referendum Measures," accessed September 6, 2013
- R-71 signature statistics
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs named
Cite error: Invalid
- Seattle Times, "Both sides complain of Ref. 71 signature check, prepare to appeal," August 27, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 9-1-09," September 1, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-31-09," August 31, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-28-09," August 28, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-27-09," August 27, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-26-09," August 26, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-25-09," August 25, 2009
- Signature spreadsheet as of August 24
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-21-09," August 21, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-20-09," August 20, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-19-09," August 19,2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-18-09," August 18, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-17-09," August 17, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-14-09," August 14, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-13-09," August 13, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-12-09," August 12, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-11-09," August 11, 2009
- Seattle Times, "Both sides complain of Ref. 71 signature check, prepare to appeal," August 27, 2009
- News Tribune, "Time ebbs for ballot measures; Eyman’s might be only one on ballot," June 14, 2009
- The Oregonian,"States should back privacy over intimidation when it comes to petitions," September 18, 2009
- Snohomish County Progressive Examiner, "Referendum 71 signatures may face challenge," August 27, 2009
- The Stranger, "R-71 Signers Didn't Have to Be Registered Voters When They Signed the Petition," August 25, 2009
- Ballot Access News, "Referendum Proponents Ask Federal Court to Protect Secrecy of Petition Signers," July 29, 2009
- Seattle Times, "Judge halts release of Wash. referendum signatures," July 29, 2009
- Seattle Times, "Judge shields signatures in gay-rights referendum," September 10, 2009
- Text of "Protect Marriage Washington v Sam Reed"
- Associated Press,"9th Circuit lifts ban on release of R-71 petitions," October 15, 2009
- Washington Post,"Thuggish liberalism at work in Wash. state vote," October 31, 2009
- The New York Times,"Privacy Looms Over Gay Rights Vote," October 31, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner,"R-71 petitions: Supreme Court sets April hearing," February 16, 2010
- The Spokesman Review,"Hearing set over petition signatures’ privacy," February 16, 2010
- The Seattle Times,"U.S. Supreme Court to hear Referendum 71 case April 28," February 16, 2010
- The Seattle Times,"Supreme Court rules petition signatures public; Ref. 71 names not immediately available," June 24, 2010
- Washington Secretary of State's: From Our Corner,"R-71 sponsors renew bid to ban petition release," July 20, 2010
- The Seattle Times,"Ban remains for now on release of R-71 petition signers' names," August 11, 2010
- Washington Secretary of State's blog: From Our Corner,"Thurston judge OKs release of initiative petitions," September 3, 2010
- Ballot Access,"Trial in Doe v Reed, Petition Privacy Case, Set for September 27, 2011," February 25, 2011
- The Seattle Times,"Fight resumes over releasing Ref. 71 names," October 2, 2011
- Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner,"Judge: Ruling on Doe v. Reed R-71 disclosure case in 2 weeks," October 4, 2011
- Associated Press,"State releases Referendum 71 petition names," October 17, 2011
- The Seattle Times,"State stops releasing Ref. 71 petitioner names," October 21, 2011
- The Seattle Times,"Niners block further release of R-71 petitions," October 24, 2011
- The Seattle Times,"Judge won't halt release of Ref. 71 petitions," November 8, 2011
- Washington Secretary of State's blog - From Our Corner,"Challengers seek Supreme Court order against R-71 releases," November 17, 2011
- Associated Press,"Group wants to hide donors in R-71 campaign," October 22, 2009
- The Seattle Times,"Judge rejects R-71 opponents' bid to lift donor limit," October 27, 2009
- Washington Poll,"2009 ballot measures," October 27, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State: From our corner,"WA Poll: R-71 leads, I-1033 trails," October 27, 2009
- Washington Secretary of State,"Indie poll shows R-71 a close call...," September 28, 2009
- Capital Hill Seattle Blog,"Poll: Domestic partnership Referendum 71 could be doomed by the 'unsure'," September 23, 2009
- Approve 71,"Approve 71 campaign poll shows a tough fight ahead. Victory hinges on voter turnout," September 23, 2009
- Washington Poll,"Public Opinion Regarding Same‐sex Domestic Partnerships in Washington," September 2, 2009
- SurveyUSA,"Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #15877," October 2009
State of Washington
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Commissioner of Public Lands | Director of Labor and Industries | Chairman of Utilities and Transportation |