Ref. 71 certified for ballot; foes to continue legal battle

The legal wrangling over Referendum 71 continues, even with Wednesday's certification of the referendum for the November ballot.

Today, a federal judge in Tacoma is expected to decide on a request to withhold from the public the names of people who signed petitions to get R-71 on the ballot.

Wednesday, Secretary of State Sam Reed certified R-71, saying a total of 137,881 signatures had been turned in. Of that, 122,007 were deemed valid — 1,403 more than the 120,577 signatures needed to qualify.

Also Wednesday, King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector denied a request to block the certification.

But she did so saying she "recognizes the concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding the validity of a significant number of petitions and signatures in this case."

Spector made the ruling in response to a lawsuit filed last week by Washington Families Standing Together, a group supporting a bill the Legislature passed last spring that expanded the state's domestic-partnership law. The expansion gave registered domestic partners the same state-provided benefits as married couples.

Originators of R-71 are asking voters whether that bill should be approved or rejected.

Washington Families' lawsuit contended the secretary of state accepted some 35,000 signatures on R-71 petitions that should have been rejected under state law.

Spector ruled that state law doesn't require the secretary of state to refuse those petitions, and that the King County court had no authority to prevent Reed from accepting them.

Furthermore, any challenges would have to be filed in Thurston County Superior Court 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 had contended the Secretary of State's Office accepted two types of signatures it shouldn't have.

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

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

The Secretary of State's Office has said for several years that though a declaration must be printed on the back of each petition form, it does not have to be signed.

It also has said that 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.

Spector said that while it may be common practice for voters to register at the same time they sign a petition, that doesn't mean it's legal and that courts in other states have decided against the 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