Difference between revisions of "Washington Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities, Referendum 71 (2009)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "harrass" to "harass")
m (Text replace - "therefor" to "therefore")
Line 148: Line 148:
 
* On [[Washington R-71 donor names to be made public|August 12, 2009]] the [http://www.pdc.wa.gov/ Washington Public Disclosure Commission] ruled that the names of donors to [[Protect Marriage Washington]] are a matter of public record.
 
* On [[Washington R-71 donor names to be made public|August 12, 2009]] the [http://www.pdc.wa.gov/ Washington Public Disclosure Commission] ruled that the names of donors to [[Protect Marriage Washington]] are a matter of public record.
  
* On [[Signatures on R-71 will remain private for now|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.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009843284_webref7111m.html ''Seattle Times'', "Judge shields signatures in gay-rights referendum", September 10, 2009]</ref>,<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/09/10/2009842734.pdf Text of "Protect Marriage Washington v Sam Reed"]</ref>
+
* On [[Signatures on R-71 will remain private for now|September 10, 2009]] federal judge Benjamin Settle maintained the restraining order on the signatures. State officials, were thereforee, not permitted to release the names of those who signed the petitions.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009843284_webref7111m.html ''Seattle Times'', "Judge shields signatures in gay-rights referendum", September 10, 2009]</ref>,<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/09/10/2009842734.pdf Text of "Protect Marriage Washington v Sam Reed"]</ref>
  
 
* On [[R-71 returns to court regarding signature privacy|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 [[R-71 returns to court regarding signature privacy|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.  

Revision as of 20:40, 22 October 2012

Voting on
Marriage and Family
Wedding rings.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Washington Referendum 71 appeared on the November 3, 2009 ballot in Washington as a veto referendum where it was upheld by the voters.

Referendum 71 was an effort launched by the Washington Values Alliance to overturn Senate Bill 5688 through the veto referendum process. SB 5688 grants state registered domestic partners in Washington all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples.

The full signature validation and certification of Referendum 71 was completed by September 2, 2009. A total of 122,007 valid signatures were determined to be present on the petition, meeting the minimum requirement of 120,577.[1]

On the Saturday, July 25 deadline, sponsors of the referendum submitted 137,881 signatures to the Washington Secretary of State.[2][3]

The new domestic partnership law was slated to go into effect on Sunday, July 26, 2009. Since signatures were submitted and validated, a statewide vote ultimately determined the approval or rejection of SB 5688.[4]

In 2009 there were about 5,700 registered domestic partnerships in Washington.[2]

Election results

Referendum 71 was upheld as of, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. EST.[5]

Washington Referendum 71
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 951,822 53.15%
No838,84246.85%

Ballot summary

Gov. Gregoire and Secretary Reed certify 2009 election results. Photo credit: Washington Secretary of State's office

According to the description prepared by the Washington Secretary of State, the ballot summary read as follows:[6]

Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.

The measure implemented its changes by amending state laws that confer rights and responsibilities to married partners to those in state registered domestic partnerships, excluding marriage Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 26.04:[7]

For the purposes of this code, with the exception of chapter 26.04 RCW, the terms spouse, marriage, marital, husband, wife, widow, widower, next of kin, and family shall be interpreted as applying equally to state registered domestic partnerships or individuals in state registered domestic partnerships as well as to marital relationships and married persons.

A "YES" vote approved SB 5688, which grants state registered domestic partners in Washington all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples. A "NO" vote rejected SB 5688.

Fiscal impact

According to state officials, Referendum 71 would increase state costs in light of required changes to benefits, employee pension survivor benefits and administrative costs. The total costs of Referendum 71 are estimated at $900,000 for FY 2009-11, $1.5 million for FY 2011-13 and $1.6 million for FY 2013-15. Additionally, Washington officials estimated a reduction in estate taxes for FY 2013-15 and an increase in annual fee revenue.[6]

Implementation costs

The overall state cost to implement Referendum 71, if approved, includes: $1.1 million for additional worker compensation and victim claim benefits; $2.6 million for state employee pension survivor benefits and $300,000 for necessary changes to public rules, information systems, publications and administrative costs.[6]

Supporters


Equal Rights Washington, Am I Protected ad, 10-4-09

The following is a list of supporters of approving Referendum 71. They were also opponents of referring SB 5688 to the ballot. They urged Washington residents not to sign the R-71 petition that placed the measure on the ballot.

  • Washington Families Standing Together
  • WhoSigned.Org
  • Equal Rights Washington
  • In September 2009 it was reported that companies includinimg Boeing, Microsoft, Nike, Puget Sound Energy, RealNetworks and Vulcan Development announced their support for passage of Referendum 71. Additionally, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, Washington State Bar Association and the Washington Association of Churches openly endorsed the campaign.[8]
  • On September 28, 2009 the Seattle City Council approved a resolution urging voters to approve Referendum 71.[9]

Opponents

The following includes opponents of Referendum 71. They were also supporters of referring SB 5688 to the ballot. The official campaign opposing Referendum 71 was called Protect Marriage Washington.[3]

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Washington ballot measures, 2009

Editorial boards in support

  • The Seattle Times announced their official support for approving Referendum 71 on October 2, 2009.[10] In an editorial the newspaper wrote: "The Seattle Times strongly endorses voter passage of legislation to expand rights for registered domestic partners. The law, already adopted by the state Legislature and signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire, takes effect after a majority of voters mark 'Approved.' At the heart of R-71 is an earnest desire to preserve families and equally protect children and adults in all committed relationships — in essence, to better take care of themselves."[11] [12]
  • The Spokesman-Review supported Referendum 71.[13]
  • The Yakima Herald-Republic supported Referendum 71. They said,"It's about granting the same rights and responsibilities of married couples to same-sex couples and to senior domestic partners. We have no argument with this, given the state and federal constitutions' clear guidance on equal rights."[14]

Editorial boards opposed

  • The Chronicle announced their opposition to Referendum 71 on October 19. In an editorial they said, " Three years ago the state Supreme Court upheld, with a 5-4 vote, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).[15] It is likely that if Ref. 71 passes, the state’s high court would overturn DOMA and allow the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Ref. 71 is much more than an expansion of civil union rights for same-sex couples. It is about same-sex marriage in Washington state. We continue to believe that marriage should be reserved for one man with one woman. Vote no on Ref. 71."[16]

Campaign contributions

$2,380,047 was reported to have been contributed to campaigns relating to Initiative 1033, $2,096,995 in support and $283,052 in opposition. In addition, $4,086 in independent expenditures were also reported, $3,523 in support and $187,272 in opposition.[17]

Requirements

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures

According to the state's campaign finance requirements the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) requires that any ballot proposition group that expects to expend $10,000 or more in the current year are required to file campaign finance reports electronically.

State law also stipulates that during the 21-day period prior to an election, contributors may not donate over $5,000 to a ballot proposition group.[18]

Supporters

In support of domestic partnership rights, the Washington Families Standing Together campaign raised a total of approximately $1,089,556.64 and spent $207,361.49, as of October 2009.[19]

Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the Washington Families Standing Together Campaign:[19]

Contributor Amount
Microsoft Corporation $100,000
Human Rights Campaign Approve Ref. 71 PAC $73,500
Pride Foundation $36,353
American Civil Liberties Union $32,000[20]
John Stryker (architect) $25,000
National Education Association $15,000

Opponents

In opposition of domestic partnership rights, the Protect Marriage Washington campaign raised a total of approximately $60,114.93 and spent $36,116.18.[21]

Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the Protect Marriage Washington Campaign:[21]

Contributor Amount
Adams Bryant (retired) $7,095
Dobbs Glenn (president of Mines Management, Inc.) $2,750
Rivers of Glory Christian Church $2,000
Atonement Free Lutheran Church $1,000
Washington Values Alliance $1,400

Lawsuits

  • Washington Families Standing Together, which supported domestic partnership rights, filed a lawsuit on August 27 against Sam Reed saying that the Washington Secretary of State is accepting signatures as valid that should not be accepted.[23]
    • The lawsuit called for preventing the Secretary of State Reed from determining that the R-71 qualified for the ballot. Additionally, the lawsuit called for eliminating two types of signatures from the final valid total of signatures: signatures on petitions where the circulator did not identify themselves or if they did not sign the declaration; signatures of voters that were not registered at the time they signed the petition.[24]
    • King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong county. According to state law, any challenge to the secretary of state must be filed in Thurston County, where the state capitol in Olympia is located.[25]
    • Thurston County Judge Thomas McPhee dismissed the case on September 8.[26] McPhee dismissed both arguments made by Washington Families Standing Together on the basis that "when a legal voter has signed a petition, his vote must be counted even though the person soliciting the signature has violated the law." He also noted that so long as the voter is registered at election time the signature may be counted.[27]
      • The transcript of the hearing can be found HERE.

Signature privacy lawsuits

Main article: Doe v. Reed
Photo credit: Washington Secretary of State's office
  • 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.[28] 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.[29]
  • On September 10, 2009 federal judge Benjamin Settle maintained the restraining order on the signatures. State officials, were thereforee, not permitted to release the names of those who signed the petitions.[30],[31]
  • 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 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.[39]
  • 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.[40]
  • U.S. District Court in Tacoma heard the case on October 3, 2011.[42][43] 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.[44]
  • 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.[45]
  • 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.[46]
  • November 8 - Judge Settle rejected a motion to block the public release of Referendum 71 petitions while Protect Marriage Washington appealed the October ruling.[48]

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.[50]
  • 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.[51]

Washington, D.C. National Equality march

On October 10 and October 11, 2009 thousands of people marched in Washington, D. C. in favor of equal rights for LGBT people in the United States. A week prior to the march a bill was introduced to the District of Columbia Council that proposed same-sex marriage in the district.[52] President Barack Obama's spoke at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner and addressed the issue of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, however, Obama did not directly address Maine's Question 1 or Washington's Referendum 71 directly. Two ballot measures that currently address the topic at hand - equal rights for LGBT people.[53][54]

President Obama opposes anti-gay referenda

Nearly a week after the Washington, D.C. march, President Obama announced his opposition to "anti-gay referenda in Maine and Washington state." At the October 10-11 event, Obama did not directly address either state's upcoming ballot measures regarding domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage. However, a week later, after questions arose regarding the President's stance on the issue, White House officials released a statement that said,"The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and as he said at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, he believes ‘strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.’" Additionally, officials said, "He supports ‘ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.’"[55]

Polls

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%.[56] [57]
  • 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.[58]
  • 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.[61]
  • 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.[62]
Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided/Other
2006 Washington Poll 58% 26% 16%
2007 Washington Poll 59% 22% 19%
2008 Washington Poll 66% 21% 13%
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%

Path to the ballot

In June, the secretary of state's office said that a state provision says that petitions for "any referendum must print in full every single word of the legislation being submitted." Additionally it must be all on one sheet. For the Referendum 71, that's a total of 114 pages of text.[63]

Exactly 137,689 signatures were submitted by late July. These signatures are underoing a verification process to validate every signature. A minimum of 120,577 valid signatures is required to move the referendum to the ballot.[64]

The full signature validation was completed by September 2, 2009.[1]

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.[65]

As of September 2, 137,881 signatures had been reviewed. Over 122,007 of them had been accepted as valid.[1]

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%.[66]

R-71 signature verifiers and observers. Photo credit: Washington Secretary of State's office
Date Signatures checked Signatures accepted Rate of invalidity Citation
120,577 required Can't exceed 12.4%
September 2 137,881 122,007 11.51% [1]
September 1 137,881 121,847 11.63% [67]
August 31 137,881 121,617 11.80% [68]
August 28 129,996 114,583 11.86% [69]
August 27 125,631 110,797 11.81% [70]
August 26 117,069 103,198 11.85% [71]
August 25 110,288 97,261 11.81% [72]
August 24 103,898 91,716 11.72% [73]
August 21 97,287 85,920 11.68% [74]
August 20 88,191 77,637 11.97% [75]
August 19 79,195 69,949 11.67% [76]
August 18 72,976 64,713 11.32% [77]
August 17 65,531 58,306 11.03% [78]
August 14 58,493 51,645 10.99% [79]
August 13 50,493 45,099 10.68% [80]
August 12 48,289 43,147 10.65% [81]
August 11 33,214 29,752 10.42% [82]

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.[83]

Signature observers

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.[83]

Supporter concerns about process

As the signature verification process unfolded, R-71 supporters expressed these concerns about the way the signatures were collected:[83]

  • They say that some signature checkers wear headphones while they work, which could be a distraction.[83]
  • Signature-collecting staff has sped up the count, which they think has led to signatures being rejected that should have been accepted.[83]
  • Signature supervisors have rolled their eyes when concerns are expressed.[83]

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.[83]
  • Opponents argue that observers, those who initiated the referendum, violated the rules that observers are supposed to follow.[83]

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.[84]
  • KnowThyNeighbor.org said that they plan to publish all the names and addresses listed on Referendum 71 petition sheets on the Internet.[85]

Newly registered voters

An area of contention in what counts as a valid signature has to do with newly-registered voters.[86]

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."[86]
  • 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."[87]

Some observers have suggested that this procedure may become the subject of a lawsuit challenging some of the validated signatures.

Domestic partnership rights

The State of Washington has had a law on the books for several years that grants domestic partnership rights. The 2009 law that is the subject of this petition expanded the rights available under pre-existing law to:

  • Add registered domestic partners to all remaining areas of state law that presently apply only to married couples.
  • The remaining areas of state law include adoption, child support rights and obligations, pensions and other public employee benefits.[2]
  • The right to receive notifications and benefits allowance as partners of victims.
  • Business succession rights.
  • Legal process rights (the ability to sign certain documents, the requirement to join in certain petitions, rights to cause of action, and ability to transfer licenses without charge).
  • Allow domestic partners to use sick leave to care for a spouse.
  • Grant to domestic partners the right to wages and benefits when a spouse is injured, and to unpaid wages upon death of spouse.
  • Grant to domestic partners the right to unemployment and disability insurance benefits.
  • Grant variouis other insurance rights, including rights under group policies, policy rights after death of spouse, conversion rights, and continuing coverage rights.

The pre-existing law granting domestic partnership rights:

  • Provides hospital visitation rights
  • The ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations
  • Inheritance rights when there is no will.
  • Gives domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.
  • Grants opposite-gender seniors the right to register as domestic partners.

The pre-existing rights will not be changed regardless of what happens with Referendum 71.[2]

See also

Articles

Signature count articles

Signature privacy articles

See also: Doe v. Reed
Photo credit: Washington Secretary of State's office

Lawsuit articles

External links

Additional reading

Editorials

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Washington Secretary of State,"R-71 Certification," September 2, 2009
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Seattle Times, "Wash. gay partnership foes turn in signatures", July 25, 2009
  3. 3.0 3.1 Kitsap Sun, "Kitsap Couples Wait for Outcome to Domestic-Partnership-Law Challenge", July 26, 2009
  4. The Seattle Times,"Wash. gay parternship foes to turn in petitions," July 20, 2009
  5. Washington Secretary of State,"2009 Election Results," last retrieved November 15, 2009
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 Washington Secretary of State,"Referendum Measure 71," retrieved September 25, 2009
  7. Washington State Legislature,"Chapter 26.04 RCW:Marriage," retrieved November 2, 2009
  8. The Seattle Times,"Approval of Referendum 71 attracts broad community support," September 24, 2009
  9. On Top Magazine,"Seattle Urges Approval Of Gay Partner Law," September 29, 2009
  10. Examiner,"Seattle Times endorses R-71," October 5, 2009
  11. Seattle Times,"Approve Referendum 71 in the name of fundamental fairness for all Washington families," October 2, 2009
  12. The Seattle Times,"Seattle Times election endorsements," October 30, 2009
  13. Spokesman-Review, "Local impact of Tuesday’s election begs participation," November 1, 2009
  14. Yakima Herald-Republic,"Tuesday's election-- What we recommend," October 30, 2009
  15. RCW 26.04.020 Prohibited marriages
  16. The Chronicle,"Our Views: Yes on Initiative 1033, No on Ref. 71," October 19, 2009
  17. Follow the Money, Initiative 1033"
  18. "Washington State PDC" Campaign Contributions Limit Chart(See Bottom of Page 1)
  19. 19.0 19.1 Washington Public Disclosure Commission,"WA Families Standing Together," retrieved October 13, 2009
  20. The Stranger,"ACLU Gives Big Money to Approve R-71," September 23, 2009
  21. 21.0 21.1 ,"Protect Marriage WA," retrieved October 13, 2009
  22. KNDO, "Domestic partnership foes challenge ballot wording", May 26, 2009
  23. Seattle Times, "Supporters of gay partnerships sue over referendum", August 27, 2009
  24. Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate,"Will Referendum 71 make the ballot? Results of litigation, not Reed's office, will decide," August 31, 2009
  25. Associated Press,"Washington judge rejects challenge to R-71," September 2, 2009
  26. Associated Press,"Wash. judge rejects challenge to R-71," September 8, 2009
  27. Examiner,"Judge rejects referendum 71 challenge," September 8, 2009
  28. Ballot Access News, "Referendum Proponents Ask Federal Court to Protect Secrecy of Petition Signers", July 29, 2009
  29. Seattle Times, "Judge halts release of Wash. referendum signatures", July 29, 2009
  30. Seattle Times, "Judge shields signatures in gay-rights referendum", September 10, 2009
  31. Text of "Protect Marriage Washington v Sam Reed"
  32. Associated Press,"9th Circuit lifts ban on release of R-71 petitions," October 15, 2009
  33. Washington Post,"Thuggish liberalism at work in Wash. state vote," October 31, 2009
  34. The New York Times,"Privacy Looms Over Gay Rights Vote," October 31, 2009
  35. Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner,"R-71 petitions: Supreme Court sets April hearing," February 16, 2010
  36. The Spokesman Review,"Hearing set over petition signatures’ privacy," February 16, 2010
  37. The Seattle Times,"U.S. Supreme Court to hear Referendum 71 case April 28," February 16, 2010
  38. The Seattle Times,"Supreme Court rules petition signatures public; Ref. 71 names not immediately available," June 24, 2010
  39. Washington Secretary of State's: From Our Corner,"R-71 sponsors renew bid to ban petition release," July 20, 2010
  40. The Seattle Times,"Ban remains for now on release of R-71 petition signers' names," August 11, 2010
  41. Washington Secretary of State's blog: From Our Corner,"Thurston judge OKs release of initiative petitions," September 3, 2010
  42. Ballot Access,"Trial in Doe v Reed, Petition Privacy Case, Set for September 27, 2011," February 25, 2011
  43. The Seattle Times,"Fight resumes over releasing Ref. 71 names," October 2, 2011
  44. Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner,"Judge: Ruling on Doe v. Reed R-71 disclosure case in 2 weeks," October 4, 2011
  45. Associated Press,"State releases Referendum 71 petition names," October 17, 2011
  46. The Seattle Times,"State stops releasing Ref. 71 petitioner names," October 21, 2011
  47. The Seattle Times,"Niners block further release of R-71 petitions," October 24, 2011
  48. The Seattle Times,"Judge won't halt release of Ref. 71 petitions," November 8, 2011
  49. Washington Secretary of State's blog - From Our Corner,"Challengers seek Supreme Court order against R-71 releases," November 17, 2011
  50. Associated Press,"Group wants to hide donors in R-71 campaign," October 22, 2009
  51. The Seattle Times,"Judge rejects R-71 opponents' bid to lift donor limit," October 27, 2009
  52. CBS News,"Gay Rights Advocates March in D.C.," October 11, 2009
  53. Los Angeles Times,"Obama owes gays more support," October 10, 2009
  54. Towleroad,"Obama Commits to Work for LGBT Equality, Offers No New Promises," October 10, 2009
  55. The Advocate,"White House Says No to Antigay Referenda," October 16, 2009
  56. Washington Poll,"2009 ballot measures," October 27, 2009
  57. Washington Secretary of State: From our corner,"WA Poll: R-71 leads, I-1033 trails," October 27, 2009
  58. Washington Secretary of State,"Indie poll shows R-71 a close call...," September 28, 2009
  59. Capital Hill Seattle Blog,"Poll: Domestic partnership Referendum 71 could be doomed by the 'unsure'," September 23, 2009
  60. Approve 71,"Approve 71 campaign poll shows a tough fight ahead. Victory hinges on voter turnout," September 23, 2009
  61. Washington Poll,"Public Opinion Regarding Same‐sex Domestic Partnerships in Washington," September 2, 2009
  62. SurveyUSA,"Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #15877," October 2009
  63. Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"Anti-domestic partner referendum is tall order - literally," June 10, 2009
  64. The Olympian,"All eyes are on R-71:Same-sex law challenge: Signature invalidity high in early count," August 7, 2009
  65. R-71 signature statistics
  66. Seattle Times, "Both sides complain of Ref. 71 signature check, prepare to appeal", August 27, 2009
  67. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 9-1-09," September 1, 2009
  68. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-31-09," August 31, 2009
  69. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-28-09," August 28, 2009
  70. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-27-09," August 27, 2009
  71. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-26-09," August 26, 2009
  72. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-25-09," August 25, 2009
  73. Signature spreadsheet as of August 24
  74. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-21-09," August 21, 2009
  75. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-20-09," August 20, 2009
  76. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-19-09," August 19,2009
  77. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-18-09," August 18, 2009
  78. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-17-09," August 17, 2009
  79. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-14-09," August 14, 2009
  80. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-13-09," August 13, 2009
  81. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-12-09," August 12, 2009
  82. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-11-09," August 11, 2009
  83. 83.0 83.1 83.2 83.3 83.4 83.5 83.6 83.7 Seattle Times, "Both sides complain of Ref. 71 signature check, prepare to appeal", August 27, 2009
  84. News Tribune, "Time ebbs for ballot measures; Eyman’s might be only one on ballot", June 14, 2009
  85. The Oregonian,"States should back privacy over intimidation when it comes to petitions," September 18, 2009
  86. 86.0 86.1 Snohomish County Progressive Examiner, "Referendum 71 signatures may face challenge", August 27, 2009
  87. The Stranger, "R-71 Signers Didn't Have to Be Registered Voters When They Signed the Petition", August 25, 2009