Today's developments in Tim Eyman's kerfuffle with the Secretary of State's Office regarding the signature count for the I-917 $30 car tab initiatitive. Eyman made this statement this morning to dispute the report that the Secretary of State issued a receipt for 265,809 signatures, and also distributed his photo of a stamped receipt for 300,353 signatures. I asked Nick Handy from the Secretary of State's Office for a response. Handy replied:
I was not present at the time, but my understanding is that Tim Eyman appeared at the Secretary of State's Office with a letter he had written indicating that he was submitting 300,353 signatures to the office.This would not be the first time that an initiative sponsor had a dispute with the Secretary of State's office regarding a signature count. In 1994 the BIAW sponsored an initiative to the Legislature, I-164. It eventually qualified, but not before allegations that then Secretary Ralph Munro and his staff made math errors, lost signatures and used an arbitrary and unreliable signature verification process.
At the front desk, he asked our receptionist to date stamp his letter as received. After she did this, he turned to the press and announced that the Office of Secretary of State had just acknowledged receipt of 300,353 signatures. Of course, we were just acknowledging receipt of a letter written by Tim Eyman claiming he was submitting 300,353 signatures. We had not counted teh pages or the signatures on his petitions at that time.
At that same time, we counted the pages (not the signatures) in either his presence or the presence of his team and issued a receipt to him indicating that on that day, July 7, he had submitted 2,716 pages (not signatures) to our office. Previously on June 29, he submitted 14,270 pages (not signatures) to our office. So, we issued receipts to him for 16,986 pages (not signatures) for this petition.
After counting the pages, we sent the petitions to our Archives division where each page was microfilmed. After getting the pages back from Archives, we counted the signatures for the first time and advised Tim Eyman at that time of the "signature count." He requested that rerecount the signatures and, at his request, and with his observers present, we recounted the signatures the next day. Our final count on the number of signatures is 266,006.
So, in summary, our office never issued a receipt to Mr. Eyman for 300,353 signatures.
An article in the media did later indicate that our office issued a receipt for "signatures" upon receiving the petitions and that was was not correct. I believe Joanie Nacke in our office called the reporter immediately to advise of the error.
Another important point here is that the initiative's qualification is based in part on comparing signatures on the petitions against signatures on voter registration forms. Given everything we've learned in the last year and a half about the verification of signatures on mail ballots, it's not clear that this process is sufficiently accurate to make a close call.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 24, 2006 09:03 AM | Email ThisThe fact is that the receipt does not prove that Eyman turned in 300k signatures, but it certainly doesn't prove that the Secretary of State only received 265k.
Eyman alleges that he requested the boxes be returned so he could weigh them and re-estimate the number of petitions, but the Secretary of State had recycled the boxes, making a post-audit impossible. So now it's a clash between Eyman's claim of what was turned in - and allegedly verified by his staff and the firms hired to obtain the signatures - versus the Secretary of State's Office that either didn't get the petitions that Eyman claims, or either accidentally or intentionally disappeared some of them.
If government was looking for a strategy for preventing certain measures from the ballot, this would certainly be one - and not something that I would dismiss.
On the other hand, if I was short signatures at deadline time, this might be a strategy to obtain some relief when validation might fall short. I wouldn't put that past anyone either.
Will we ever know the truth? Not likely.
Stefan makes another good point. With information that anyone could obtain from King County's website, including signatures on posted documents, anyone could sign a petition for someone else and the real voter would never be able to determine whether it had happened or not. For companies that make their livlihood gathering signatures, wouldn't this be a very cost-effective approach to avoiding travel and staffing of petition signing posts?
One thing is certain, we may require databases for every initiative to simply allow voters to validate their participation, or to validate that they did not participate in a petition without their knowing.
Posted by: MJC on July 24, 2006 09:22 AMAt a minimum, he should have gotten a signed receipt for the number of pages submitted.
That said, it would not surprise me if Reed attempted to "hide" signatures, but Eyman needs to make a si=omewhat better case for the time being.
Posted by: Don on July 24, 2006 09:27 AMEyeman the pieman has cried wolf so many times, no one is listening now. However, a number written on a piece of paper! PURE GENIOUS!
Posted by: rossi too on July 24, 2006 10:03 AMReed's office counted the number of pages in the presence of Eyman and his supporters. They came up with 16,986 pages.
Does Reed's office still have 16,986 pages?
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 24, 2006 10:40 AMIt's no secret that bureaucrats statewide absolutely hate Eyeman and his initiatives. And everybody also knows that it's the counters not the voters who control things around here.
Posted by: G Jiggy on July 24, 2006 11:23 AM1. Was every page filled with signatures?
2. If every page was not filled then how many were there that were not filled?
Perhaps this could make this whole thing a little easier to figure out. And like Richard Pope said are there still 16,986 pages still in the SEC State's office?
1. Why would Eyman lie about the number of signatures he submitted?
2. Why would Eyman's campaign not make copies of the petitions? Heck, even at $.10 per page it would only cost about $1700 (out of about a $350,000 campaign).
3. Why would anybody at the SOS risk their jobs and their freedom to "pilfer" the petitions?
4. If I-917 does not qualify, will this mean that Eyman is effectively crippled?
5. Even if the SOS has "recycled" the petitions, doesn't having the petitions on microfilm provide sufficient evidence as to the number of petitions?
These are just some of the questions that I have. I would like to see the readers answers. In the interest of full - disclosure, I will provide my answers to the above questions.
1. Because he lies to himself and others and needs the attention.
2. I have no idea, but if he was so meticulous about his "process", you'd think that this would be low hanging fruit.
3. I don't believe anyone would risk their job and jail time.
4. I don't know. Eyman may never go away. As long as there is voter miscontent, he has a base.
5. As I understand the microfilm process, yes.
Posted by: Ed Scherer on July 24, 2006 01:27 PMIt seems that your answer to your 3 question is a proper knee-jerk reaction of an honest person. I will remind you that many government workers risked their careers during the election of 2004. However, none have paid the price or suffered any jail time for their "accidents" or "mistakes".
Posted by: Snuffy on July 24, 2006 01:41 PMHere is an alternative strategy. My Eyman and all his 30 dollar tab supporters should
1) Peel the State tab off the plate of all their vehicles, and throw it away.
2) Mail 30 dollars per vehicle to the State each year.
3) Be prepared to go to jail. (One cannot just pay the fee. You've go to court, get convicted, and refuse to pay the fine - do the time.)
If ten thousand Washingtonians did this and even 100 went to jail for it (likely, it wouldn't even take that many) the extra tab fees (above 30 dollars) would go away for a long, long, time.
Posted by: Jericho on July 24, 2006 01:57 PM1. Who knows if he is lying.
2. Good question. It would make sense to have copies.
3. The 2004 election fiasco proved that very few people ever get prosecutted for wrong doing at the government level in this state when it comes to elections.
4. Doubt it. It isnt the first time things didnt work out for him.
5. It would only be the case if the microfilm was before anything was recycled or not.
Who knows what the truth is in this situation and who knows if we ever will know. If there was any wrong doing I would not be suprised to find out that it was only one or two people who conviently forgot to take some pages out of the box prior to recycling. It would be very hard to prove who did it and therefore next to impossible to prosecute.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 24, 2006 02:03 PMPublic employees would more routinely risk their jobs and careers if they refused to go along with the wrongdoing they are pressured to participate in. For example, King County DOT whistleblowers who alleged improper and illegal actions by their colleagues and managers found themselves the target of retaliation, demotion, and threats of termination.
In fact, if you live in King County, your tax dollars, to the tune of more than a million bucks as of last year, had been spent by King County on private counsel to defend the alleged improper and illegal actions by county planners and their managers.
The King County Council is planning in minutes today to approve another huge development made possible as a result of this alleged wrongdoing, where the alleged wrongdoers will certainly be rewarded for their actions, while the whistleblowers struggle to rebuild promising careers.
Bottom line, if you can establish a significant political motive for wrongdoing by government, I think it's more likely that it will occur than not.
In the case of an Eyman initiative that is very close to making the ballot or not, I wouldn't put it past Olympia to lose some signatures. Not in a second.
Posted by: MJC on July 24, 2006 02:07 PMCan Ed please prove where Eyeman "lies to himself". Don't bother, it will probably be some partisan screed along the lines of "Bush lied . . . "
Why would there be a need to copy? Isn't the state competent, fair and protective of our right to initiative? (Ha! Ha! Ha!, sometimes I crack myself up!).
Anyway, Snuffy pretty much covers my thoughts for Ed with the exception of the "honest person", part. Ed just tried to make it look that way.
Posted by: G Jiggy on July 24, 2006 02:12 PMMaybe Eyeman can go to court to get access to the MF and then the state can stall for a few months until the election is over. Then the state will announce that Tim DID have enough signatures but made a mistake. Does any of that sound familiar?
Posted by: G Jiggy on July 24, 2006 03:48 PMSam Reed's office counted in front of Tim's staff the 16,986 pages (not signatures) that Tim 's staff produced.
I heard Sam Reed today state that they keep everything but did not keep the actual boxes that Tim said had the counts on the sides.
So Sam Reed should just make the 16,986 pages available for an independent review and recount.
Gregoire got 3 recounts before she claimed victory.
Tim has only gotten two thus far.
So Sam just needs to offer out the 16,986 pages, which he still has in his possession, to an independent auditor for a third recount.
Neither side disagrees at all (from what I have heard) on how many pages were accepted, it's only on the amount of signatures.
This is not rocket science.
If Sam Reed can produce the 16,986 pages which he said were still part of public record.
Verify the amount of pages is 16,986, and then count em again!
End of story!
Why would Eyman need to con us at all? He has had initiatives fail to make the ballot and he has had initiatives fail on election day. Neither of these scenarios has hamstrung either the ability of Permanent Offense to come up with further initiatives or the State of Washington's ability to create more issues that the people will hate and attempt to overturn.
If it fails, move on.
Posted by: Calvin A on July 25, 2006 04:57 AMAlso, what the heck is the SOS's office doing stamping a slip of paper with a number written on it? That seems kind of silly to me...
Posted by: JonS on July 25, 2006 09:44 AMOPEN AND TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS...right...uuuhh...hmmm...?
Posted by: dl on July 25, 2006 12:15 PMED 9.3 "Why would anyone at SOS risk thir jobs and freedom to pilfer petitions?" GET A CLUE... it's been going on in King County Elections for years and nobody has even been investigated, much less lost their job or freedom (except whistleblowers). Not saying SOS office has issues like KCE, but clearly there is NO reason for employees to believe that such actions would be caught or prosecuted.
OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS...right...huh...hhmmm....well...???
Posted by: dl on July 25, 2006 12:41 PMSome here automatically assume that Eyeman is the one who is lying when the state (and/or gummit generally) has the proven track record in that regard. The state also has a proven track record of bumbling incompetence.
Posted by: G Jiggy on July 25, 2006 01:43 PMEyman could have sat on the story until the verification process was done, then go public. I hope that I-917 appears on the ballot.
Posted by: KS on July 25, 2006 07:30 PMIf it weren't for the big dig West, aka Sound Transit Light rail the roads would be maintained much better and light rail will do negligible benefit for cargo containers, but improved roads will benefit freight. Try reading the details and getting informed before you make clueless blanket statements that are invalid.
Posted by: KS on July 25, 2006 09:04 PM