Judge won't block certification of referendum on domestic-partnership law

A King County judge will not block Secretary of State Sam Reed's certification this morning of Referendum 71 for the November ballot.

King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector made the ruling this morning in response to a lawsuit filed last week by Washington Families Standing Together, a group supporting the state's recent law giving gay couples greater domestic-partnership benefits.

Originators of the referendum are asking voters whether to approve or reject the law.

Reed certified R-71 for the November ballot after his office issued a count of 122,007 signatures — 1,430 more than the 120,577 signatures required to qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot.

Washington Families' lawsuit had sought to block that certification. The group contended the secretary of state accepted some 35,000 signatures on R-71 petitions that should have been rejected, based on state law.

Spector said in her ruling that "the court recognizes the concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding the validity of a significant number of petitions and signatures in this case."

But she also said the law does not require the secretary of state to refuse petitions that do not meet state law and that it is unclear whether there are limits to the secretary of state's discretion to accept petitions.

Furthermore, Spector said, the King County Superior Court has no authority to prevent the secretary of state from accepting the petitions with questionable signatures, and that those challenging the signatures can only do so after the referendum has been certified.

Any challenge to R-71 would have to be brought before the Thurston County Superior Court within five days after the referendum is certified, she said.

Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families, said her group will file such a suit as soon as possible.

"The court's ruling today strongly reinforced (our) position that thousands of signatures had been accepted that were not done in compliance with Washington state law," she said.

Gary Randall, a key organizer behind the effort to overturn the domestic-partnership benefits, said, "I'm not at all surprised that the other side said they're going to file a lawsuit because I know they're desperate."

"I'm pleased with the certification and pleased the judge didn't block the certification," he said

Washington Families contends the Secretary of State's Office didn't comply with state law when it accepted two types of signatures.

The first involves signatures collected by gatherers who did not sign declarations on the backs of R-71 petitions, stating they themselves circulated the petitons and that the people who signed did so knowingly.

A number of petitions, totalling nearly 34,000 signatures, had R-71 organizer Larry Stickney's name stamped on the declarations, and the declarations on several other petitions were left blank.

The second involves signatures of people who were not registered to vote at the time they signed the petition.

The secretary of state said that for several years now, it's followed the advice of the Attorney General's Office, that though a declaration must be printed on the back of each petition form, it does not have to be signed.

The secretary of state also said that — in the interest of increased voter participation — as long as a signer is listed in the voter-registration file by the time his/her signature is checked, the actual date of registration doesn't matter.

In her court ruling today, Judge Spector said that while it may be common practice for voters to register at the same time they sign a petition, "that does not mean the practice is in accordance with Washington law," and that courts in other states have decided against that practice.

Spector also said that having the declaration just printed, but not signed, on the back of the petitions "essentially renders the declaration requirement meaningless."

Further, she noted that neither the secretary of state, nor those seeking to overturn the expanded benefits law, had addressed Washington Families' allegations that some signature gatherers had lied about what the referendum would do.

"It is unclear whether a signature-gatherer can swear that an individual signer has signed the petition 'knowingly' when the signature-gatherer has allegedly misrepresented the contents of the petition," Spector said.

Janet I. Tu: 206-464-2272 or jtu@seattletimes.com