January 27, 2010

To: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state (cc'd to all media outlets -- reporters, columnists, editorial writers, and others in newspapers, radio, and TV -- House & Senate members, and the Governor)

From: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, ph: 425-493-9127, email: tim_eyman@comcast.net, http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com

RE: Universal opposition to disenfranchising tens of thousands of valid voter signatures on initiative petitions

Definition of 'consensus' -- general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action.

Listed below are excerpts from newspaper editorials who weighed in against the policies in this year's anti-initiative bills previously. House Bill 2614 sponsored by Rep. Sam Hunt (D-Olympia) and Senate Bill 6449 sponsored by Rep. Joe McDermott (D-Seattle) -- HERE'S THEIR BILLS AND ALL OTHER ANTI-INITIATIVE BILLS -- require the rejection of petitions filled with valid voter signatures if the person who gathered the signatures doesn't put his/her name and address on the back of the petition:

Seattle Times editorial: "Attacking initiatives: Two bills in the Legislature would require a signature gatherer to sign each petition with a name and address. They are represented as good-government bills, but really they are another attack on the people's right of initiative and referendum. They do this by making the validity of the voter's signature depend upon the signature-gatherer's signature. If the signature gatherer did not sign and disclose his address, House Bill 2019 (this year it's HB 2614/SB 6449) would allow the secretary of state to throw out all the signatures on that petition. The other bills offered this year to regulate (and really to discourage) citizen initiatives have been aimed at paid signature gatherers. These two are aimed more at volunteers, who are more likely to overlook a bureaucratic requirement or be intimidated by it. There is no justification for such intimidation, nor for throwing valid voter signatures into the wastebasket."

Olympian editorial: "The much-loved but much-maligned initiative process is under assault in the state Legislature. SB 5182 (this year it's HB 2614/SB 6449) says that unless the signature collector signs the declaration and provides an address, voter signatures on the front are invalid. This bill would affect the grassroots volunteers who collect signatures. Only about half of them flip the initiative over and sign the declaration. The bill, if passed, would nullify thousands of otherwise valid signatures, and that's why SB 5182 (this year it's HB 2614/SB 6449) should be rejected by the Legislature."

Yakima Herald Republic editorial: "We have a particular problem with SB 5182 (this year it's HB 2614/SB 6449), because if a signature gatherer fails to complete the declaration, the Secretary of State must refuse to file the petition. That would reject valid voters' signatures along with the invalid. A way should be found to ensure that all valid signatures count."

The Everett Herald editorial: "Hampering initiatives isn't a productive idea": "Even more perverse is the proposal to require the secretary of state to throw out all signatures on a petition - including valid ones, signed in good faith by registered voters - if the signature-gatherer fails to properly fill out and sign the back of the form. The intent of these bills is clear: make it harder to get initiatives on the ballot. It's wrongheaded and unnecessary."

The Centralia Chronicle editorial: "Signature Process Isn't Broken, Doesn't Need Democrats' Fix": "Legislative Democrats trying to make it tougher to get initiatives and referendums on the ballot have introduced other measures, as well, including requiring signature gatherers ... to personally sign each petition page so they can be found if there is any allegation of fraud. But, again, there have been no credible fraud allegations. These other measures amount mostly to harassment and to that extent would further impinge on free speech and petition rights."

Walla Walla Union Bulletin editorial: "Legislators are also considering ... imposing new rules - with added paperwork - for those collecting signatures. This is the wrong approach. It has the potential to muffle free speech. Legislators pushing the so-called reforms to the initiative process contend they are doing so to curb fraud. But, to this point, there is no evidence of fraud or serious irregularities with the signatures or the way they have been gathered. The public is in control, and that's the way it should stay. Lawmakers shouldn't tinker with the initiative process - it's not broken."

Olympian news story: The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington opposed it (HB 2614/SB 6449) because a voter who lawfully signed the petition would have his or her signature rejected if the gatherer didn't follow the rules.

There's a legislative hearing on Thurs morning, 8 am, O'Brien Bldg, in Olympia on the slew of anti-initiative bills being pushed this year. Will let you know how it goes.