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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (See also)
m (Text replace - ""." to "."")
(36 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{marriage}}{{TOCnestright}}'''Washington Referendum 71''' appeared on the [[2009_ballot_measures#Washington|November 3, 2009]] ballot in Washington as a [[veto referendum]] where it was {{Upheld1}} by the voters.
+
<table style="float: right;">
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td>
 +
{{tnr}}
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
{{Marriage and family}}
 +
{{wabm}}
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>
  
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 '''Washington Domestic Partner Rights Bill''', also known as '''Referendum 71''', was on the [[2009_ballot_measures#Washington|November 3, 2009 ballot]] in [[Washington]] as a {{vrfull}}, 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.<ref name=voterguide>[https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVote/OnlineVotersGuide/Measures?language=en&electionId=32&countyCode=xx&ismyVote=False&electionTitle=2009%20General%20Election%20#ososTop ''Office of the Secretary of State'', "2009 Voters Pamphlet," accessed September 6, 2013]</ref>
 
+
The full signature validation and certification of Referendum 71 was completed by [[BC2009#September|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.<ref name="SigCert">[http://www.secstate.wa.gov/_assets/elections/R-71-Certification.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State'',"R-71 Certification," September 2, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
On the [[BC2009#July|Saturday, July 25]] deadline, sponsors of the referendum submitted 137,881 signatures to the [[Washington Secretary of State]].<ref name=sigs>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009538417_apwadomesticpartnerships.html ''Seattle Times'', "Wash. gay partnership foes turn in signatures", July 25, 2009]</ref><ref name=kitsap>[http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/jul/26/kitsap-couples-wait-for-outcome-to-domestic-law/ ''Kitsap Sun'', "Kitsap Couples Wait for Outcome to Domestic-Partnership-Law Challenge", July 26, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
The new domestic partnership law was slated to go into effect on Sunday, [[BC2009#July|July 26, 2009]].  Since signatures were submitted and validated, a statewide vote ultimately determined the approval or rejection of SB 5688.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009505231_apwadomesticpartnerships.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Wash. gay parternship foes to turn in petitions," July 20, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
In 2009 there were about 5,700 registered domestic partnerships in Washington.<ref name=sigs/>
+
  
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
Referendum 71 was {{Upheld1}} as of, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. EST.<ref>[http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/ ''Washington Secretary of State'',"2009 Election Results," last retrieved November 15, 2009]</ref>
+
{{Short outcome
{{Outcome
+
| title = Washington Referendum 71 (2009)
| title = Referendum 71
+
 
| yes = 951,822
 
| yes = 951,822
 
| yespct = 53.15
 
| yespct = 53.15
Line 22: Line 23:
 
| turnoutpct = 50.47
 
| turnoutpct = 50.47
 
}}
 
}}
 +
Election results via: [http://vote.wa.gov/results/20091103/ Washington Secretary of State]
  
==Ballot summary==
+
==Text of measure==
[[File:Gregoire and Reed '09.JPG|thumb|300px|Gov. Gregoire and Secretary Reed certify 2009 election results. Photo credit: [[Washington Secretary of State]]'s office]]
+
The language appeared on the ballot as:<ref name=voterguide/>
According to the description prepared by the [[Washington Secretary of State]], the ballot summary read as follows:<ref name="WAballot">[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2009/GeneralElection/Documents/R-71.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State'',"Referendum Measure 71," retrieved September 25, 2009]</ref>
+
{{Quote|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.  
  
<blockquote>''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.''</blockquote>
+
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.  
  
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:<ref>[http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.04 ''Washington State Legislature'',"Chapter 26.04 RCW:Marriage," retrieved November 2, 2009]</ref>
+
Should this bill be:  
 +
[ ] Approved
 +
[ ] Rejected}}
  
<blockquote>''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.''</blockquote>
+
==Fiscal note==
 +
A fiscal impact statement was included in the 2009 Voters' Guide. The fiscal impacts of Initiative 985 are described as follows:<ref name=voterguide/>
 +
{{Quote|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.}}
  
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.
+
==Support==
 +
[[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.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2009937576_edit25ref71.html ''The Seattle Times'', "Approval of Referendum 71 attracts broad community support," September 24, 2009]</ref> On September 28, 2009, the Seattle City Council approved a resolution urging residents to approve the measure.<ref>[http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=4612&MediaType=1&Category=26 ''On Top Magazine'', "Seattle Urges Approval Of Gay Partner Law," September 29, 2009]</ref>
  
===Fiscal impact===
+
===Arguments===
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.<ref name="WAballot"/>
+
The following reasons were given in support of Referendum 71 in the Washington 2009 Voters' Guide:<ref name=voterguide/>
 +
{{Quote|'''The Domestic Partnership Law Protects All Washington Families'''
  
===Implementation costs===
+
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.  
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.<ref name="WAballot"/>
+
  
==Supporters==
+
“This law provides essential protections to many older couples and to families with children who would otherwise be living without a safety net.
<div style="float:right">
+
{|class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="205"
+
|-
+
|{{#ev:youtube|iHiuCHLRLNM|300}}<br><span style="font-size:80%">Equal Rights Washington, Am I Protected ad, 10-4-09</span>
+
|}</div>
+
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]]
+
'''What is included in the Domestic Partnership law?'''
* [[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.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2009937576_edit25ref71.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Approval of Referendum 71 attracts broad community support," September 24, 2009]</ref>
+
*On September 28, 2009 the Seattle City Council approved a resolution urging voters to approve Referendum 71.<ref>[http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=4612&MediaType=1&Category=26 ''On Top Magazine'',"Seattle Urges Approval Of Gay Partner Law," September 29, 2009]</ref>
+
  
==Opponents==
+
:*Death benefits for partners of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty
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]].<ref name=kitsap/>
+
:*Right to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner
 +
:*Pension benefits for partners of teachers and other public employees
 +
:*Victims’ rights Right to workers’ compensation benefits if a partner is killed in the course of employment
  
* [[Washington Values Alliance]]
+
'''Who supports the law?'''
* The [[Faith and Freedom Network]]
+
  
==Media editorial positions==
+
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.
  
:: ''See also: [[Endorsements of Washington ballot measures, 2009]]''
+
''They, and we, ask you to vote APPROVED on R 71 - for ALL Washington families.''}}
  
===Editorial boards in support===
+
The arguments in favor of Referendum 71 were prepared by:<ref name=voterguide/>
*The '''Seattle Times''' announced their official support for approving Referendum 71 on October 2, 2009.<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-14432-King-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m10d5-Seattle-Times-endorses-R71 ''Examiner'',"Seattle Times endorses R-71," October 5, 2009]</ref> 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."<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2009990546_edit04ref71.html ''Seattle Times'',"Approve Referendum 71 in the name of fundamental fairness for all Washington families," October 2, 2009]</ref> <ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2010171398_edit01wrap.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Seattle Times election endorsements," October 30, 2009]</ref>
+
*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 '''Spokesman-Review''' supported Referendum 71.<ref>[http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/nov/01/local-impact-of-tuesdays-election-begs/ ''Spokesman-Review'', "Local impact of Tuesday’s election begs participation," November 1, 2009]</ref>
+
===Contributions===
 +
$2,177,137 was reported as raised in support of Referendum 71. [[Washington Families Standing Together]] received the majority of contributions, $2,096,995.<ref name=follow>[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/ballot.phtml?m=660 ''Follow the Money'', "Referendum 71: Legal Domestic Partnerships," accessed September 6, 2013]</ref>
  
* 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."<ref>[http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/opinion ''Yakima Herald-Republic'',"Tuesday's election-- What we recommend," October 30, 2009]</ref>
+
The top eight donors to Washington Families Standing Together were:<ref name=follow/>
 +
*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
  
===Editorial boards opposed===
+
==Opposition==
* '''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).<ref>[http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.04 RCW 26.04.020 Prohibited marriages]</ref> 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."<ref>[http://www.chronline.com/articles/2009/10/19/opinion/our_views/doc4adcb0856c4d5359791273.txt ''The Chronicle'',"Our Views: Yes on Initiative 1033, No on Ref. 71," October 19, 2009]</ref>
+
"[[Protect Marriage Washington]]" was the official campaign organization opposing the referendum. Other opponents included the [[Washington Values Alliance]] and the [[Faith and Freedom Network]].
  
==Donors==
+
===Arguments===
:: ''See also: [[Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures]]''
+
The following reasons were given in opposition to Referendum 71 in the Washington 2009 Voters' Guide:<ref name=voterguide/>
 +
{{Quote|'''Reject Senate Bill 5688 to Preserve Marriage!'''  
  
According to the state's [[Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures|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.  
+
SB 5688 is primarily about homosexual marriage - not benefits.  
  
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.<ref>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/Filers/LimitsChart2009.pdf "Washington State PDC" Campaign Contributions Limit Chart](See Bottom of Page 1)</ref>
+
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.”
  
===Supporters===
+
Senator Murray told the Times (May 17, 2009) that the domestic partnership expansion (SB 5688) is an “incremental approach…a strategic plan.
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.<ref name="FamiliesContributions">[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/querysystem/committees/initiativedata.aspx ''Washington Public Disclosure Commission'',"WA Families Standing Together," retrieved October 13, 2009]</ref>
+
  
'''Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the Washington Families Standing Together Campaign:'''<ref name="FamiliesContributions"/>
+
SB 5688 is the last incremental step to same-sex marriage in Washington State.
  
{| class="wikitable"
+
'''Reject Senate Bill 5688 to Protect Families!'''
|-
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | Contributor
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | Amount
+
|-
+
| Microsoft Corporation || $100,000
+
|-
+
| Human Rights Campaign Approve Ref. 71 PAC || $73,500
+
|-
+
| Pride Foundation || $36,353
+
|-
+
| American Civil Liberties Union ||  $32,000<ref>[http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/09/23/aclu-gives-big-money-to-approve-r-71 ''The Stranger'',"ACLU Gives Big Money to Approve R-71," September 23, 2009]</ref>
+
|-
+
| John Stryker (architect) || $25,000
+
|-
+
| [[National Education Association]] || $15,000
+
|-
+
|}
+
  
===Opponents===
+
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.
In opposition of domestic partnership rights, the [[Protect Marriage Washington]] campaign raised a total of approximately $60,114.93 and spent $36,116.18.<ref name="ProtectContributions">[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/querysystem/committees/initiativedata.aspx'',"Protect Marriage WA," retrieved October 13, 2009]</ref>
+
  
'''Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the Protect Marriage Washington Campaign:'''<ref name="ProtectContributions"/>
+
'''Reject Senate Bill 5688 to Protect Children!'''
  
{| class="wikitable"
+
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.
|-
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | Contributor
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | 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==
+
'''Reject Senate Bill 5688 to Protect Taxpayers!'''
  
* The Washington Values Alliance (WVA) filed a lawsuit on [[BC2009#May|May 26, 2009]] against the [[Washington Attorney General]] challenging the [[ballot title]] written for Referendum 71, but later withdrew it.<ref>[http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=10426823 ''KNDO'', "Domestic partnership foes challenge ballot wording", May 26, 2009]</ref>
+
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.}}
  
* [[Washington Families Standing Together]], which supported domestic partnership rights, filed a lawsuit on [[BC2009#August|August 27]] against [[Sam Reed]] saying that the [[Washington Secretary of State]] is accepting signatures as valid that should not be accepted.<ref name=siglaw>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009760264_apwadomesticpartnerships5thldwritethru.html ''Seattle Times'',  "Supporters of gay partnerships sue over referendum", August 27, 2009]</ref>
+
The arguments against Referendum 71 were prepared by:<ref name=voterguide/>
** 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.<ref>[http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2009/08/will-referendum-71-make-ballot-results.html ''Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate'',"Will Referendum 71 make the ballot? Results of litigation, not Reed's office, will decide," August 31, 2009]</ref>
+
*Larry Stickney, Campaign Manager, Protect Marriage Washington
** [[King County, Washington ballot measures|King County]] Superior Court Judge Julie Spector [[Superior Court judge dismisses R-71 challenge but states concerns about signatures|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|secretary of state]] must be filed in [[Thurston County, Washington ballot measures|Thurston County]], where the state capitol in Olympia is located.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009794239_apwadomesticpartnerships5thldwritethru.html ''Associated Press'',"Washington judge rejects challenge to R-71," September 2, 2009]</ref>
+
*Gary Randall, President, Faith and Freedom Network
** [[Thurston County, Washington ballot measures|Thurston County]] Judge Thomas McPhee dismissed the case on September 8.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009826612_apwadomesticpartnerships2ndldwritethru.html ''Associated Press'',"Wash. judge rejects challenge to R-71," September 8, 2009]</ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-20571-Seattle-LGBT-Issues-Examiner~y2009m9d8-Judge-rejects-referendum-71-challenge ''Examiner'',"Judge rejects referendum 71 challenge," September 8, 2009]</ref>
+
*[[Matt Shea]], Representative (R), 4th Legislative District, Washington State Legislature
***The transcript of the hearing can be found [http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Oral%20Ruling%20by%20Judge%20McPhee.pdf HERE].
+
*Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S.
  
===Signature privacy lawsuits===
+
==Contributions==
:: ''Main article: [[Doe v. Reed]]''
+
$494,892 was reported as raised in opposition to Referendum 71.<ref name=follow/>
  
[[File:SCOTUSAprilHearing.jpg|thumb|300px|Photo credit: [[Washington Secretary of State]]'s office]]
+
The top five donors to the campaign against the referendum were:<ref name=follow/>
* At the request of [[Protect Marriage Washington]], federal judge [[judgepedia:Benjamin Settle|Benjamin Settle]] issued a temporary restraining order on [[BC2009#July|July 29, 2009]] to halt the public release of a list of those who signed the R-71 petition.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/07/29/referendum-proponents-ask-federal-court-to-protect-secrecy-of-petition-signers/ ''Ballot Access News'', "Referendum Proponents Ask Federal Court to Protect Secrecy of Petition Signers", July 29, 2009]</ref> Supporters of R-71 said in their TRO request that releasing the identity of petition signers might put those signers at risk of harrassment, leading to a situation where their First Amendment rights are chilled. A hearing on whether to make the TRO permanent took place on [[BC2009#September|September 3, 2009]].<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009564509_apwadomesticpartnerships2ndldwritethru.html ''Seattle Times'', "Judge halts release of Wash. referendum signatures", July 29, 2009]</ref>
+
*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
  
* 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.
+
==Media editorial positions==
 +
:: ''See also: [[Endorsements of Washington ballot measures, 2009]]''
  
* 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>
+
===Support===
 +
* '''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."<ref>[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/2009-endorsements/Content?oid=2472608 ''The Stanger'', "2009 Endorsements," October 15, 2009]</ref>
 +
* '''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."<ref>[http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2010171398_edit01wrap.html ''The Seattle Times'', "Seattle Times election endorsements," October 30, 2009]</ref>
 +
*'''The Olympian''' said, "The Olympian's editorial board offers an unqualified endorsement of equal rights for same-sex domestic partners."<ref>[http://www.theolympian.com/2009/10/04/992484/support-equality-support-referendum.html ''The Olumpian'', "Support equality, support Referendum 71'', October 4, 2009]
  
* 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.
+
===Opposition===
 
+
* '''The Chronicle''' said, "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."<ref>[http://www.chronline.com/articles/2009/10/19/opinion/our_views/doc4adcb0856c4d5359791273.txt ''The Chronicle'', "Our Views: Yes on Initiative 1033, No on Ref. 71," October 19, 2009]</ref>
* On [[Washington Court of Appeals lifts ban on R-71 petitions|October 15, 2009]] the [[Judgepedia:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Circuit Court of Appeals]] issued an order to reverse the decision made by U.S. District Judge Ben Settle.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010072409_apwadomesticpartnerships.html ''Associated Press'',"9th Circuit lifts ban on release of R-71 petitions," October 15, 2009]</ref>
+
** Later that day R-71 opponents announced that they plan to [[R-71 signature privacy case continues|appeal the Court of Appeals decision]].
+
 
+
* On [[BC2009#October|October 19, 2009]], [[Judgepedia:Anthony Kennedy|Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy]] [[Supreme Court Justice temporary blocks R-71 names|temporarily blocked]] state officials from releasing any names on Referendum 71 petitions.
+
 
+
* The [[Judgepedia:United States Supreme Court|United States Supreme Court]] ruled on October 20, 2009 to uphold the the ban on releasing petition signatures. Justice [[Judgepedia:John Paul Stevens|John Paul Stevens]] dissented.<ref>[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6696754.html ''Washington Post'',"Thuggish liberalism at work in Wash. state vote," October 31, 2009]</ref> The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the issue, and it is unclear whether it will.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01petition.html?_r=1 The New York Times'',"Privacy Looms Over Gay Rights Vote," October 31, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
* The [[Judgepedia:United States Supreme Court|United States Supreme Court]] heard the signature privacy case on [[BC2010#April|April 28, 2010]].<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/02/r-71-petitions-supreme-court-sets-april-hearing/ ''Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner'',"R-71 petitions: Supreme Court sets April hearing," February 16, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/16/secret-signature-hearing-set/ ''The Spokesman Review'',"Hearing set over petition signatures’ privacy," February 16, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2011097124_us_supreme_court_to_hear_ref_7.html ''The Seattle Times'',"U.S. Supreme Court to hear Referendum 71 case April 28," February 16, 2010]</ref>
+
 
+
* On [[SCOTUS rules R-71 petition signatures can be made public|June 24, 2010]] the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled 8-1 enforcing Washington's Public Records Act; making petition signatures public.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012196559_scotus25m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Supreme Court rules petition signatures public; Ref. 71 names not immediately available," June 24, 2010]</ref>
+
 
+
* On [[BC2010#July|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.<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/07/r-71-renew-bid-for-ban-on-petition-release/ ''Washington Secretary of State's: From Our Corner'',"R-71 sponsors renew bid to ban petition release," July 20, 2010]</ref>
+
 
+
* On [[BC2010#August|August 11, 2010]] U.S. District Court [[judgepedia:Benjamin Settle|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.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012595120_referendum12m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Ban remains for now on release of R-71 petition signers' names," August 11, 2010]</ref>
+
 
+
* On [[BC2010#September|September 7, 2010]], [[Judgepedia:Thurston County Superior Court, Washington|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.<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/09/thurston-judge-oks-release-of-initiative-petitions/ ''Washington Secretary of State's blog: From Our Corner'',"Thurston judge OKs release of initiative petitions," September 3, 2010]</ref>
+
 
+
* U.S. District Court in Tacoma is expected to hear the case on [[BC2011#September|September 27, 2011]].<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/02/25/trial-in-doe-v-reed-petition-privacy-case-set-for-september-27-2011/ ''Ballot Access'',"Trial in Doe v Reed, Petition Privacy Case, Set for September 27, 2011," February 25, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
===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 requirements for Washington ballot measures|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]].<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010118702_apwadomesticpartnerships.html ''Associated Press'',"Group wants to hide donors in R-71 campaign," October 22, 2009]</ref>
+
* 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.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010146043_webref71ruling27m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Judge rejects R-71 opponents' bid to lift donor limit," October 27, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
==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.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/11/national/main5377345.shtml ''CBS News'',"Gay Rights Advocates March in D.C.," October 11, 2009]</ref> 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 [[Washington Referendum 71 (2009)|Referendum 71]] directly. Two ballot measures that currently address the topic at hand - equal rights for LGBT people.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-marriage10-2009oct10,0,7748345.story ''Los Angeles Times'',"Obama owes gays more support," October 10, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://www.towleroad.com/2009/10/obama-speech-to-gays-highlights-commitment-offers-no-new-promises.html ''Towleroad'',"Obama Commits to Work for LGBT Equality, Offers No New Promises," October 10, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
===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.’"<ref>[http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/10/16/White_House_Issues_Statement_on_Maine_Washington/ ''The Advocate'',"White House Says No to Antigay Referenda," October 16, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
==Polls==
+
 
+
:: ''See also: [[Polls, 2009 ballot measures]]''
+
 
+
* A poll conducted October 14 – 26 by the [http://www.washingtonpoll.org/ 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%.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpoll.org/results/OCT_27_09.pdf ''Washington Poll'',"2009 ballot measures," October 27, 2009]</ref> <ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/10/wa-poll-r-71-leads-i-1033-trails/ ''Washington Secretary of State: From our corner'',"WA Poll: R-71 leads, I-1033 trails," October 27, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
* On [[BC2009#September|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.<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/09/indie-poll-shows-r-71-a-close-call/ ''Washington Secretary of State'',"Indie poll shows R-71 a close call...," September 28, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
* On [[BC2009#September|September 23, 2009]] [http://approvereferendum71.org/ 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 [http://www.greenbergresearch.com/ Greenberg Quinlan Rosner] (GQR).<ref>[http://capitolhillseattle.com/2009/09/23/poll-domestic-partnership-referendum-71-could-be-doomed-by-the-unsure ''Capital Hill Seattle Blog'',"Poll: Domestic partnership Referendum 71 could be doomed by the 'unsure'," September 23, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://approvereferendum71.org/09/approve-71-campaign-poll-shows-a-tough-fight-ahead-victory-hinges-on-voter-turnout/ ''Approve 71'',"Approve 71 campaign poll shows a tough fight ahead. Victory hinges on voter turnout," September 23, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
* The [http://www.washingtonpoll.org/ Washington Poll] released polling results for 2006-2008 on [[BC2009#September|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.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpoll.org/pdf/same_sex.pdf ''Washington Poll'',"Public Opinion Regarding Same‐sex Domestic Partnerships in Washington," September 2, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
* 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.<ref>[http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4049d520-4339-45f7-90b8-6aa9cc01a166 ''SurveyUSA'',"Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #15877," October 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
{{R-71 poll}}
+
  
 
==Path to the ballot==
 
==Path to the ballot==
 
+
137,881 signatures were filed by Lawrence Stickney of Arlington on May 4, 2009 and sent to the [[Washington Secretary of State|Secretary of State]].<ref> [http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/statistics_referendummeasures.aspx '''Office of the Secretary of State''', "History of Referendum Measures," accessed September 6, 2013]</ref>
In June, the [[Washington Secretary of State|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.<ref>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/170842.asp ''Seattle Post-Intelligencer'',"Anti-domestic partner referendum is tall order - literally," June 10, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
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.<ref>[http://www.theolympian.com/southsound/story/933104.html ''The Olympian'',"All eyes are on R-71:Same-sex law challenge: Signature invalidity high in early count," August 7, 2009]</ref>
+
 
+
The full signature validation was completed by September 2, 2009.<ref name="SigCert"/>
+
  
 
===Signature validity count===
 
===Signature validity count===
Line 207: Line 146:
 
As of September 2, 137,881 signatures had been reviewed.  Over 122,007 of them had been accepted as valid.<ref name="SigCert"/>
 
As of September 2, 137,881 signatures had been reviewed.  Over 122,007 of them had been accepted as valid.<ref name="SigCert"/>
  
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%.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009753281_referendum27m.html ''Seattle Times'', "Both sides complain of Ref. 71 signature check, prepare to appeal", August 27, 2009]</ref>
+
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%.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009753281_referendum27m.html ''Seattle Times'', "Both sides complain of Ref. 71 signature check, prepare to appeal," August 27, 2009]</ref>
  
 
[[File:R71checkers.jpg|thumb|300px|R-71 signature verifiers and observers.  Photo credit: [[Washington Secretary of State]]'s office]]
 
[[File:R71checkers.jpg|thumb|300px|R-71 signature verifiers and observers.  Photo credit: [[Washington Secretary of State]]'s office]]
Line 230: Line 169:
 
| align="center" | 122,007  
 
| align="center" | 122,007  
 
| align="center" | 11.51%
 
| align="center" | 11.51%
| <ref name="SigCert"/>
+
|<ref name="SigCert"/>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 237: Line 176:
 
| align="center" | 121,847  
 
| align="center" | 121,847  
 
| align="center" | 11.63%
 
| align="center" | 11.63%
| <ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%209-1-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 9-1-09," September 1, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%209-1-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 9-1-09," September 1, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 244: Line 183:
 
| align="center" | 121,617  
 
| align="center" | 121,617  
 
| align="center" | 11.80%
 
| align="center" | 11.80%
| <ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%208-31-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-31-09," August 31, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%208-31-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-31-09," August 31, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 251: Line 190:
 
| align="center" | 114,583
 
| align="center" | 114,583
 
| align="center" | 11.86%
 
| align="center" | 11.86%
| <ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%208-28-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-28-09," August 28, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%208-28-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-28-09," August 28, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 258: Line 197:
 
| align="center" | 110,797
 
| align="center" | 110,797
 
| align="center" | 11.81%
 
| align="center" | 11.81%
| <ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%208-27-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-27-09," August 27, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%208-27-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-27-09," August 27, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 265: Line 204:
 
| align="center" | 103,198
 
| align="center" | 103,198
 
| align="center" | 11.85%
 
| align="center" | 11.85%
| <ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%208-26-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-26-09," August 26, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%208-26-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-26-09," August 26, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 272: Line 211:
 
| align="center" | 97,261
 
| align="center" | 97,261
 
| align="center" | 11.81%
 
| align="center" | 11.81%
| <ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%208-25-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-25-09," August 25, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Referendum%2071%20Volumes%20Completed%208-25-09.pdf ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-25-09," August 25, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 279: Line 218:
 
| align="center" | 91,716  
 
| align="center" | 91,716  
 
| align="center" | 11.72%
 
| align="center" | 11.72%
| <ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-update-signature-count-tops-100000/#more-3448 Signature spreadsheet as of August 24]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-update-signature-count-tops-100000/#more-3448 Signature spreadsheet as of August 24]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 286: Line 225:
 
| align="center" | 85,920
 
| align="center" | 85,920
 
| align="center" | 11.68%
 
| align="center" | 11.68%
| <ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/friday-r-71-fix-another-9000-signatures-counted/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-21-09," August 21, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/friday-r-71-fix-another-9000-signatures-counted/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-21-09," August 21, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 293: Line 232:
 
| align="center" | 77,637
 
| align="center" | 77,637
 
| align="center" | 11.97%
 
| align="center" | 11.97%
| <ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-update-9000-new-sigs-counted/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-20-09," August 20, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-update-9000-new-sigs-counted/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-20-09," August 20, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 300: Line 239:
 
| align="center" | 69,949
 
| align="center" | 69,949
 
| align="center" | 11.67%
 
| align="center" | 11.67%
| <ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-update-checkers-near-80k-mark/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-19-09," August 19,2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-update-checkers-near-80k-mark/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-19-09," August 19,2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 307: Line 246:
 
| align="center" | 64,713  
 
| align="center" | 64,713  
 
| align="center" | 11.32%
 
| align="center" | 11.32%
| <ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-count-surges-to-nearly-73k/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-18-09," August 18, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-count-surges-to-nearly-73k/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-18-09," August 18, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 314: Line 253:
 
| align="center" | 58,306  
 
| align="center" | 58,306  
 
| align="center" | 11.03%
 
| align="center" | 11.03%
| <ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-signature-check-nears-halfway-point/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-17-09," August 17, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-signature-check-nears-halfway-point/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-17-09," August 17, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 321: Line 260:
 
| align="center" | 51,645  
 
| align="center" | 51,645  
 
| align="center" | 10.99%
 
| align="center" | 10.99%
| <ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-the-friday-evening-post/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-14-09," August 14, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-the-friday-evening-post/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-14-09," August 14, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 328: Line 267:
 
| align="center" | 45,099  
 
| align="center" | 45,099  
 
| align="center" | 10.68%
 
| align="center" | 10.68%
| <ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-thursday-update-50k-and-counting/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-13-09," August 13, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-thursday-update-50k-and-counting/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-13-09," August 13, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 335: Line 274:
 
| align="center" | 43,147  
 
| align="center" | 43,147  
 
| align="center" | 10.65%
 
| align="center" | 10.65%
| <ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-wednesday-update-tally-now-tops-48000/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-12-09," August 12, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-wednesday-update-tally-now-tops-48000/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-12-09," August 12, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 342: Line 281:
 
| align="center" | 29,752   
 
| align="center" | 29,752   
 
| align="center" | 10.42%
 
| align="center" | 10.42%
| <ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-fresh-snapshot-of-fully-checked-signatures/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-11-09," August 11, 2009]</ref>
+
|<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/08/r-71-fresh-snapshot-of-fully-checked-signatures/ ''Washington Secretary of State Signature'',"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-11-09," August 11, 2009]</ref>
  
 
|}
 
|}
Line 371: Line 310:
 
===Supporter concerns about process===
 
===Supporter concerns about process===
  
As the signature verification process unfolded, R-71 supporters expressed these concerns about the way the signatures were collected:<ref name=complain>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009753281_referendum27m.html ''Seattle Times'', "Both sides complain of Ref. 71 signature check, prepare to appeal", August 27, 2009]</ref>
+
As the signature verification process unfolded, R-71 supporters expressed these concerns about the way the signatures were collected:<ref name=complain>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009753281_referendum27m.html ''Seattle Times'', "Both sides complain of Ref. 71 signature check, prepare to appeal," August 27, 2009]</ref>
  
 
* They say that some signature checkers wear headphones while they work, which could be a distraction.<ref name=complain/>  
 
* They say that some signature checkers wear headphones while they work, which could be a distraction.<ref name=complain/>  
Line 390: Line 329:
 
* It attracted a [[Decline to Sign]] campaign against it.
 
* 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.
 
* 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.<ref>[http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/government/story/778419.html ''News Tribune'', "Time ebbs for ballot measures; Eyman’s might be only one on ballot", June 14, 2009]</ref>
+
* 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.<ref>[http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/government/story/778419.html ''News Tribune'', "Time ebbs for ballot measures; Eyman’s might be only one on ballot," June 14, 2009]</ref>
 
* [http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/ KnowThyNeighbor.org] said that they plan to publish all the names and addresses listed on Referendum 71 petition sheets on the Internet.<ref>[http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2009/09/states_should_back_privacy_ove.html ''The Oregonian'',"States should back privacy over intimidation when it comes to petitions," September 18, 2009]</ref>
 
* [http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/ KnowThyNeighbor.org] said that they plan to publish all the names and addresses listed on Referendum 71 petition sheets on the Internet.<ref>[http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2009/09/states_should_back_privacy_ove.html ''The Oregonian'',"States should back privacy over intimidation when it comes to petitions," September 18, 2009]</ref>
  
 
===Newly registered voters===
 
===Newly registered voters===
  
An area of contention in what counts as a valid signature has to do with newly-registered voters.<ref name=snohomish>[http://www.examiner.com/x-481-Snohomish-County-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m8d27-Referendum-71-signatures-may-face-challenge ''Snohomish County Progressive Examiner'', "Referendum 71 signatures may face challenge", August 27, 2009]</ref>
+
An area of contention in what counts as a valid signature has to do with newly-registered voters.<ref name=snohomish>[http://www.examiner.com/x-481-Snohomish-County-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m8d27-Referendum-71-signatures-may-face-challenge ''Snohomish County Progressive Examiner'', "Referendum 71 signatures may face challenge," August 27, 2009]</ref>
  
 
Some background facts:
 
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.
 
* 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."<ref name=snohomish/>
+
* 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."<ref name=snohomish/>
* 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."<ref>[http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/08/25/r-71-signers-didnt-have-to-be-registered-voters-when-they-signed-the-petition ''The Stranger'', "R-71 Signers Didn't Have to Be Registered Voters When They Signed the Petition", August 25, 2009]</ref>
+
* 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."<ref>[http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/08/25/r-71-signers-didnt-have-to-be-registered-voters-when-they-signed-the-petition ''The Stranger'', "R-71 Signers Didn't Have to Be Registered Voters When They Signed the Petition," August 25, 2009]</ref>
  
 
Some observers have suggested that this procedure may become the subject of a lawsuit challenging some of the validated signatures.
 
Some observers have suggested that this procedure may become the subject of a lawsuit challenging some of the validated signatures.
  
==Domestic partnership rights==
+
===Doe v. Reed===
 +
:: ''See also: [[Doe v. Reed]]''
  
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:
+
[[File:SCOTUSAprilHearing.jpg|thumb|300px|Photo credit: [[Washington Secretary of State]]'s office]]
  
* Add registered domestic partners to all remaining areas of state law that presently apply only to married couples.
+
* At the request of [[Protect Marriage Washington]], federal judge [[judgepedia:Benjamin Settle|Benjamin Settle]] issued a temporary restraining order on [[BC2009#July|July 29, 2009]] to halt the public release of a list of those who signed the R-71 petition.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/07/29/referendum-proponents-ask-federal-court-to-protect-secrecy-of-petition-signers/ ''Ballot Access News'', "Referendum Proponents Ask Federal Court to Protect Secrecy of Petition Signers," July 29, 2009]</ref>  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 [[BC2009#September|September 3, 2009]].<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009564509_apwadomesticpartnerships2ndldwritethru.html ''Seattle Times'', "Judge halts release of Wash. referendum signatures," July 29, 2009]</ref>
* The remaining areas of state law include adoption, child support rights and obligations, pensions and other public employee benefits.<ref name=sigs/>
+
* 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:
+
* 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.
  
* Provides hospital visitation rights
+
* 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>
* 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.<ref name=sigs/>
+
* 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 [[Washington Court of Appeals lifts ban on R-71 petitions|October 15, 2009]] the [[Judgepedia:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Circuit Court of Appeals]] issued an order to reverse the decision made by U.S. District Judge Ben Settle.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010072409_apwadomesticpartnerships.html ''Associated Press'',"9th Circuit lifts ban on release of R-71 petitions," October 15, 2009]</ref>
 +
** Later that day R-71 opponents announced that they plan to [[R-71 signature privacy case continues|appeal the Court of Appeals decision]].
 +
 
 +
* On [[BC2009#October|October 19, 2009]], [[Judgepedia:Anthony Kennedy|Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy]] [[Supreme Court Justice temporary blocks R-71 names|temporarily blocked]] state officials from releasing any names on Referendum 71 petitions.
 +
 
 +
* The [[Judgepedia:United States Supreme Court|United States Supreme Court]] ruled on October 20, 2009 to uphold the ban on releasing petition signatures. Justice [[Judgepedia:John Paul Stevens|John Paul Stevens]] dissented.<ref>[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6696754.html ''Washington Post'',"Thuggish liberalism at work in Wash. state vote," October 31, 2009]</ref> The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the issue, and it is unclear whether it will.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01petition.html?_r=1 The New York Times'',"Privacy Looms Over Gay Rights Vote," October 31, 2009]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* The [[Judgepedia:United States Supreme Court|United States Supreme Court]] heard the signature privacy case on [[BC2010#April|April 28, 2010]].<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/02/r-71-petitions-supreme-court-sets-april-hearing/ ''Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner'',"R-71 petitions: Supreme Court sets April hearing," February 16, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/16/secret-signature-hearing-set/ ''The Spokesman Review'',"Hearing set over petition signatures’ privacy," February 16, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2011097124_us_supreme_court_to_hear_ref_7.html ''The Seattle Times'',"U.S. Supreme Court to hear Referendum 71 case April 28," February 16, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* On [[SCOTUS rules R-71 petition signatures can be made public|June 24, 2010]] the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled 8-1 enforcing Washington's Public Records Act; making petition signatures public.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012196559_scotus25m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Supreme Court rules petition signatures public; Ref. 71 names not immediately available," June 24, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* On [[BC2010#July|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.<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/07/r-71-renew-bid-for-ban-on-petition-release/ ''Washington Secretary of State's: From Our Corner'',"R-71 sponsors renew bid to ban petition release," July 20, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* On [[BC2010#August|August 11, 2010]] U.S. District Court [[judgepedia:Benjamin Settle|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.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012595120_referendum12m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Ban remains for now on release of R-71 petition signers' names," August 11, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* On [[BC2010#September|September 7, 2010]], [[Judgepedia:Thurston County Superior Court, Washington|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.<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/09/thurston-judge-oks-release-of-initiative-petitions/ ''Washington Secretary of State's blog: From Our Corner'',"Thurston judge OKs release of initiative petitions," September 3, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* U.S. District Court in Tacoma heard the case on [[BC2011#October|October 3, 2011]].<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/02/25/trial-in-doe-v-reed-petition-privacy-case-set-for-september-27-2011/ ''Ballot Access'',"Trial in Doe v Reed, Petition Privacy Case, Set for September 27, 2011," February 25, 2011]</ref><ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016387893_signatures03m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Fight resumes over releasing Ref. 71 names," October 2, 2011]</ref> 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.<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2011/10/judge-ruling-on-doe-v-reed-r-71-disclosure-case-in-2-weeks/ ''Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner'',"Judge: Ruling on Doe v. Reed R-71 disclosure case in 2 weeks," October 4, 2011]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* On [[BC2011#October|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.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016530949_apwadomesticpartnershipssignatures2ndld.html ''Associated Press'',"State releases Referendum 71 petition names," October 17, 2011]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* [[BC2011#October|October 21, 2011]] - [[Protect Marriage Washington|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.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016570433_signatures22m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"State stops releasing Ref. 71 petitioner names," October 21, 2011]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* [[BC2011#October|October 24, 2011]] - the [[Judgepedia:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Circuit Court of Appeals]] issued a temporary injunction on the release of petitions.<ref>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/10/24/niners-block-further-release-of-r-71-petitions/ ''The Seattle Times'',"Niners block further release of R-71 petitions," October 24, 2011]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* [[BC2011#November|November 8]] - Judge Settle rejected a motion to block the public release of Referendum 71 petitions while Protect Marriage Washington appealed the October ruling.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016719655_r7109m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Judge won't halt release of Ref. 71 petitions," November 8, 2011]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* [[BC2011#November|November 16, 2011]] - the [[Judgepedia:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Circuit Court of Appeals]] rejected a request to further block the release of petition signatures.<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2011/11/appeals-court-declines-to-block-release-of-r-71-petitions/ ''Washington Secretary of State's blog - From Our Corner'',"Challengers seek Supreme Court order against R-71 releases," November 17, 2011]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* On [[BC2011#November|November 21, 2011]] the [[United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]] rejected a request made to [[Judgepedia:Anthony Kennedy|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 requirements for Washington ballot measures|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]].<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010118702_apwadomesticpartnerships.html ''Associated Press'',"Group wants to hide donors in R-71 campaign," October 22, 2009]</ref>
 +
* 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.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010146043_webref71ruling27m.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Judge rejects R-71 opponents' bid to lift donor limit," October 27, 2009]</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Polls==
 +
:: ''See also: [[Polls, 2009 ballot measures]]''
 +
 
 +
* A poll conducted October 14 – 26 by the [http://www.washingtonpoll.org/ 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%.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpoll.org/results/OCT_27_09.pdf ''Washington Poll'',"2009 ballot measures," October 27, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/10/wa-poll-r-71-leads-i-1033-trails/ ''Washington Secretary of State: From our corner'',"WA Poll: R-71 leads, I-1033 trails," October 27, 2009]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* On [[BC2009#September|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.<ref>[http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/09/indie-poll-shows-r-71-a-close-call/ ''Washington Secretary of State'',"Indie poll shows R-71 a close call...," September 28, 2009]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* On [[BC2009#September|September 23, 2009]] [http://approvereferendum71.org/ 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 [http://www.greenbergresearch.com/ Greenberg Quinlan Rosner] (GQR).<ref>[http://capitolhillseattle.com/2009/09/23/poll-domestic-partnership-referendum-71-could-be-doomed-by-the-unsure ''Capital Hill Seattle Blog'',"Poll: Domestic partnership Referendum 71 could be doomed by the 'unsure'," September 23, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://approvereferendum71.org/09/approve-71-campaign-poll-shows-a-tough-fight-ahead-victory-hinges-on-voter-turnout/ ''Approve 71'',"Approve 71 campaign poll shows a tough fight ahead. Victory hinges on voter turnout," September 23, 2009]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* The [http://www.washingtonpoll.org/ Washington Poll] released polling results for 2006-2008 on [[BC2009#September|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.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpoll.org/pdf/same_sex.pdf ''Washington Poll'',"Public Opinion Regarding Same‐sex Domestic Partnerships in Washington," September 2, 2009]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* 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.<ref>[http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4049d520-4339-45f7-90b8-6aa9cc01a166 ''SurveyUSA'',"Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #15877," October 2009]</ref>
 +
 
 +
{{R-71 poll}}
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
{{colbegin|2}}
+
{{submit a link}}
* [[Washington signature requirements]]
+
*[[Washington 2009 ballot measures]]
* [[Washington 2009 ballot measures]]
+
*[[2009 ballot measures]]
* [[List of Washington ballot measures]]
+
*[[List of Washington ballot measures]]
* [[2009 ballot measures]]
+
* [[List of Washington State veto referenda]]
+
* [[Signature privacy challenged in Washington]]
+
{{colend}}
+
  
===Articles===
+
===Articles on the campaign===
 
* [[Federal judge strikes down contribution limits on Washington ballot issues]]
 
* [[Federal judge strikes down contribution limits on Washington ballot issues]]
 
* [[Same-sex marriage measures raised over $100 million in 2008]]
 
* [[Same-sex marriage measures raised over $100 million in 2008]]
 
* [[Washington's domestic partnership law goes into effect today]]
 
* [[Washington's domestic partnership law goes into effect today]]
  
===Signature count articles===
+
===Articles on the signature count===
{{colbegin|2}}
+
 
* [[Washington R-71 qualifies for November ballot]]
 
* [[Washington R-71 qualifies for November ballot]]
 
* [[Washington R-71 signature count 2/3 complete]]
 
* [[Washington R-71 signature count 2/3 complete]]
{{colend}}
 
  
===Signature privacy articles===
+
===Articles on signature privacy issues===
:: ''See also: [[Doe v. Reed]]''
+
* [[Washington R-71 petition release halted]]
[[File:R71main(WASOS).jpg|thumb|300px|Photo credit: [[Washington Secretary of State]]'s office]]
+
* [[Washington State releases Referendum 71 petitions following ruling]]
{{colbegin|2}}
+
* [[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]]
 
* [[Ruling releases Washington initiative petitions]]
 
* [[SCOTUS rules R-71 petition signatures can be made public]]
 
* [[SCOTUS rules R-71 petition signatures can be made public]]
Line 469: Line 443:
 
* [[Federal judge grants signature privacy TRO]]
 
* [[Federal judge grants signature privacy TRO]]
 
* [[Washington R-71 donor names to be made public]]
 
* [[Washington R-71 donor names to be made public]]
{{colend}}
 
  
===Lawsuit articles===
+
===Articles on lawsuits===
{{colbegin|2}}
+
 
* [[Washington's high court dismisses R-71 challenge]]
 
* [[Washington's high court dismisses R-71 challenge]]
 
* [[Washington judge rejects increase of donor limit]]
 
* [[Washington judge rejects increase of donor limit]]
Line 485: Line 457:
 
* [http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?RaceTypeCode=M&JurisdictionTypeID=-2&ElectionID=32&ViewMode=Results Washington Referendum 71 Election Results]
 
* [http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?RaceTypeCode=M&JurisdictionTypeID=-2&ElectionID=32&ViewMode=Results Washington Referendum 71 Election Results]
 
* [http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009 Text of SB 5688]
 
* [http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009 Text of SB 5688]
* [http://protectmarriagewa.com/ Website of "Protect Marriage Washington", supporters of overturning SB 5688]
+
* [http://protectmarriagewa.com/ Website of "Protect Marriage Washington," supporters of overturning SB 5688]
 
* [https://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2009/GeneralElection/Pages/OVG_20091103.aspx?ElectionID=32&sorttype=Measures Washington Ballot Measures Online Voter Guide 2009]
 
* [https://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2009/GeneralElection/Pages/OVG_20091103.aspx?ElectionID=32&sorttype=Measures Washington Ballot Measures Online Voter Guide 2009]
 
* [http://whosigned.org/ WhoSigned], group opposing R-71
 
* [http://whosigned.org/ WhoSigned], group opposing R-71
Line 495: Line 467:
 
==Additional reading==
 
==Additional reading==
 
{{colbegin|3}}
 
{{colbegin|3}}
 +
* [http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2012/02/nearly-10000-domestic-partnerships-registered-in-wa/ ''Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner'',"Nearly 10,000 domestic partnerships registered in WA," February 2, 2012]
 
* [http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/03/r-71-petitions-wa-attorneys-press-case-to-high-court/ ''Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner'',"R-71 petitions: Attorneys press case to high court," March 25, 2010]
 
* [http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/03/r-71-petitions-wa-attorneys-press-case-to-high-court/ ''Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner'',"R-71 petitions: Attorneys press case to high court," March 25, 2010]
 
* [http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/story/1091601.html ''The Olympian'',"Voters should have right to privacy when signing," January 6, 2010]
 
* [http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/story/1091601.html ''The Olympian'',"Voters should have right to privacy when signing," January 6, 2010]
Line 521: Line 494:
 
==References==
 
==References==
  
{{reflist|2}}
+
{{reflist}}
  
 
{{2009 ballot measures}}
 
{{2009 ballot measures}}
 
{{Washington}}
 
{{Washington}}
 +
 
[[Category:Washington 2009 ballot measures]]
 
[[Category:Washington 2009 ballot measures]]
[[Category:Marriage, Washington]]
+
[[Category:Marriage and family, Washington]]
[[Category:Marriage, 2009]]
+
[[Category:Marriage and family, 2009]]
 
[[Category:Veto referendum, Washington]]
 
[[Category:Veto referendum, Washington]]
 
[[Category:Veto referendum, 2009]]
 
[[Category:Veto referendum, 2009]]
 +
[[Category:LGBT issues, 2009]]
 +
[[Category:LGBT issues, Washington]]

Revision as of 07:57, 25 March 2014

Voting on
Marriage and Family
Wedding rings.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Ballot measures
in Washington State
Seal of Washington.jpg
Constitutional amendments
Initiatives to the People
Initiatives to the Legislature
Statutes referred by Legislature
Veto referendums
Political topics on the ballot
LawsHistoryConstitution

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.[1]

Election results

Washington Referendum 71 (2009)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 951,822 53.15%
No838,84246.85%

Election results via: Washington Secretary of State

Text of measure

The language appeared on the ballot as:[1]

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[2]

Fiscal note

A fiscal impact statement was included in the 2009 Voters' Guide. The fiscal impacts of Initiative 985 are described as follows:[1]

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.[2]

Support

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.[3] On September 28, 2009, the Seattle City Council approved a resolution urging residents to approve the measure.[4]

Arguments

The following reasons were given in support of Referendum 71 in the Washington 2009 Voters' Guide:[1]

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?

  • Death benefits for partners of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty
  • Right to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner
  • Pension benefits for partners of teachers and other public employees
  • Victims’ rights Right to workers’ compensation benefits if a partner is killed in the course of employment

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.[2]

The arguments in favor of Referendum 71 were prepared by:[1]

  • 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

Contributions

$2,177,137 was reported as raised in support of Referendum 71. Washington Families Standing Together received the majority of contributions, $2,096,995.[5]

The top eight donors to Washington Families Standing Together were:[5]

  • 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

Opposition

"Protect Marriage Washington" was the official campaign organization opposing the referendum. Other opponents included the Washington Values Alliance and the Faith and Freedom Network.

Arguments

The following reasons were given in opposition to Referendum 71 in the Washington 2009 Voters' Guide:[1]

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.[2]

The arguments against Referendum 71 were prepared by:[1]

  • 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.

Contributions

$494,892 was reported as raised in opposition to Referendum 71.[5]

The top five donors to the campaign against the referendum were:[5]

  • 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

See also: Endorsements of Washington ballot measures, 2009

Support

  • 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."[6]
  • 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."[7]
  • The Olympian said, "The Olympian's editorial board offers an unqualified endorsement of equal rights for same-sex domestic partners."Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag

Path to the ballot

137,881 signatures were filed by Lawrence Stickney of Arlington on May 4, 2009 and sent to the Secretary of State.[8]

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.[9]

As of September 2, 137,881 signatures had been reviewed. Over 122,007 of them had been accepted as valid.[10]

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%.[11]

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% [10]
September 1 137,881 121,847 11.63% [12]
August 31 137,881 121,617 11.80% [13]
August 28 129,996 114,583 11.86% [14]
August 27 125,631 110,797 11.81% [15]
August 26 117,069 103,198 11.85% [16]
August 25 110,288 97,261 11.81% [17]
August 24 103,898 91,716 11.72% [18]
August 21 97,287 85,920 11.68% [19]
August 20 88,191 77,637 11.97% [20]
August 19 79,195 69,949 11.67% [21]
August 18 72,976 64,713 11.32% [22]
August 17 65,531 58,306 11.03% [23]
August 14 58,493 51,645 10.99% [24]
August 13 50,493 45,099 10.68% [25]
August 12 48,289 43,147 10.65% [26]
August 11 33,214 29,752 10.42% [27]

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.[28]

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.[28]

Supporter concerns about process

As the signature verification process unfolded, R-71 supporters expressed these concerns about the way the signatures were collected:[28]

  • They say that some signature checkers wear headphones while they work, which could be a distraction.[28]
  • Signature-collecting staff has sped up the count, which they think has led to signatures being rejected that should have been accepted.[28]
  • Signature supervisors have rolled their eyes when concerns are expressed.[28]

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.[28]
  • Opponents argue that observers, those who initiated the referendum, violated the rules that observers are supposed to follow.[28]

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.[29]
  • KnowThyNeighbor.org said that they plan to publish all the names and addresses listed on Referendum 71 petition sheets on the Internet.[30]

Newly registered voters

An area of contention in what counts as a valid signature has to do with newly-registered voters.[31]

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."[31]
  • 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."[32]

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
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.[33] 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.[34]
  • 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.[35][36]
  • 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.[44]
  • 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.[45]
  • U.S. District Court in Tacoma heard the case on October 3, 2011.[47][48] 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.[49]
  • 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.[50]
  • 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.[51]
  • November 8 - Judge Settle rejected a motion to block the public release of Referendum 71 petitions while Protect Marriage Washington appealed the October ruling.[53]

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.[55]
  • 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.[56]

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%.[57][58]
  • 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.[59]
  • 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.[62]
  • 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.[63]
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%

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Articles on the campaign

Articles on the signature count

Articles on signature privacy issues

Articles on lawsuits

</div>

External links

Additional reading

Editorials

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Office of the Secretary of State, "2009 Voters Pamphlet," accessed September 6, 2013
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  3. The Seattle Times, "Approval of Referendum 71 attracts broad community support," September 24, 2009
  4. On Top Magazine, "Seattle Urges Approval Of Gay Partner Law," September 29, 2009
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Follow the Money, "Referendum 71: Legal Domestic Partnerships," accessed September 6, 2013
  6. The Stanger, "2009 Endorsements," October 15, 2009
  7. The Seattle Times, "Seattle Times election endorsements," October 30, 2009
  8. Office of the Secretary of State, "History of Referendum Measures," accessed September 6, 2013
  9. R-71 signature statistics
  10. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named SigCert
  11. Seattle Times, "Both sides complain of Ref. 71 signature check, prepare to appeal," August 27, 2009
  12. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 9-1-09," September 1, 2009
  13. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-31-09," August 31, 2009
  14. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-28-09," August 28, 2009
  15. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-27-09," August 27, 2009
  16. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-26-09," August 26, 2009
  17. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-25-09," August 25, 2009
  18. Signature spreadsheet as of August 24
  19. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-21-09," August 21, 2009
  20. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-20-09," August 20, 2009
  21. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-19-09," August 19,2009
  22. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-18-09," August 18, 2009
  23. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-17-09," August 17, 2009
  24. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-14-09," August 14, 2009
  25. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-13-09," August 13, 2009
  26. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-12-09," August 12, 2009
  27. Washington Secretary of State Signature,"Referendum 71 Volumes Completed 8-11-09," August 11, 2009
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6 28.7 Seattle Times, "Both sides complain of Ref. 71 signature check, prepare to appeal," August 27, 2009
  29. News Tribune, "Time ebbs for ballot measures; Eyman’s might be only one on ballot," June 14, 2009
  30. The Oregonian,"States should back privacy over intimidation when it comes to petitions," September 18, 2009
  31. 31.0 31.1 Snohomish County Progressive Examiner, "Referendum 71 signatures may face challenge," August 27, 2009
  32. The Stranger, "R-71 Signers Didn't Have to Be Registered Voters When They Signed the Petition," August 25, 2009
  33. Ballot Access News, "Referendum Proponents Ask Federal Court to Protect Secrecy of Petition Signers," July 29, 2009
  34. Seattle Times, "Judge halts release of Wash. referendum signatures," July 29, 2009
  35. Seattle Times, "Judge shields signatures in gay-rights referendum," September 10, 2009
  36. Text of "Protect Marriage Washington v Sam Reed"
  37. Associated Press,"9th Circuit lifts ban on release of R-71 petitions," October 15, 2009
  38. Washington Post,"Thuggish liberalism at work in Wash. state vote," October 31, 2009
  39. The New York Times,"Privacy Looms Over Gay Rights Vote," October 31, 2009
  40. Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner,"R-71 petitions: Supreme Court sets April hearing," February 16, 2010
  41. The Spokesman Review,"Hearing set over petition signatures’ privacy," February 16, 2010
  42. The Seattle Times,"U.S. Supreme Court to hear Referendum 71 case April 28," February 16, 2010
  43. The Seattle Times,"Supreme Court rules petition signatures public; Ref. 71 names not immediately available," June 24, 2010
  44. Washington Secretary of State's: From Our Corner,"R-71 sponsors renew bid to ban petition release," July 20, 2010
  45. The Seattle Times,"Ban remains for now on release of R-71 petition signers' names," August 11, 2010
  46. Washington Secretary of State's blog: From Our Corner,"Thurston judge OKs release of initiative petitions," September 3, 2010
  47. Ballot Access,"Trial in Doe v Reed, Petition Privacy Case, Set for September 27, 2011," February 25, 2011
  48. The Seattle Times,"Fight resumes over releasing Ref. 71 names," October 2, 2011
  49. Washington Secretary of State: From Our Corner,"Judge: Ruling on Doe v. Reed R-71 disclosure case in 2 weeks," October 4, 2011
  50. Associated Press,"State releases Referendum 71 petition names," October 17, 2011
  51. The Seattle Times,"State stops releasing Ref. 71 petitioner names," October 21, 2011
  52. The Seattle Times,"Niners block further release of R-71 petitions," October 24, 2011
  53. The Seattle Times,"Judge won't halt release of Ref. 71 petitions," November 8, 2011
  54. Washington Secretary of State's blog - From Our Corner,"Challengers seek Supreme Court order against R-71 releases," November 17, 2011
  55. Associated Press,"Group wants to hide donors in R-71 campaign," October 22, 2009
  56. The Seattle Times,"Judge rejects R-71 opponents' bid to lift donor limit," October 27, 2009
  57. Washington Poll,"2009 ballot measures," October 27, 2009
  58. Washington Secretary of State: From our corner,"WA Poll: R-71 leads, I-1033 trails," October 27, 2009
  59. Washington Secretary of State,"Indie poll shows R-71 a close call...," September 28, 2009
  60. Capital Hill Seattle Blog,"Poll: Domestic partnership Referendum 71 could be doomed by the 'unsure'," September 23, 2009
  61. Approve 71,"Approve 71 campaign poll shows a tough fight ahead. Victory hinges on voter turnout," September 23, 2009
  62. Washington Poll,"Public Opinion Regarding Same‐sex Domestic Partnerships in Washington," September 2, 2009
  63. SurveyUSA,"Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #15877," October 2009