Thursday, February 18, 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: Conniving, Machiavellian, sneaky:
newly amended version of anti-initiative bill SB 6449 — perfectly valid voter signatures WILL NEVER BE COUNTED This is as sleazy, conniving and Machiavellian as it gets.
Chairman Sam Hunt’s original bill required ANYONE, whether paid or unpaid, who collects voter signatures MUST personally write their name, signature, home address, city, state, zip code and date on the back of each petition — if they don’t, then the signatures MUST BE REJECTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
This negation of valid voter signatures drew monstrous protests from the ACLU, newspapers, and citizens. So to supposedly appease critics, he changed the bill so that it became optional to fill it out the back — and with petitions not filled out on the back, the Secretary of State would be required to check every signature on that page — all signatures would still count.
This change earned enough votes to get out of committee. But when the bill moved to Appropriations, the Secretary of State’s surrogate, Katie Blinn, told them that with it being optional to fill out the back, it would likely result in all signatures having to be individually verified, costing $140,000 per initiative.
SO THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOLD APPROPRIATIONS TO CHANGE THE BILL TO PROHIBIT INITIATIVE SPONSORS FROM TURNING IN PETITIONS UNLESS THE BACK WAS FILLED OUT EVEN IF VALID VOTER SIGNATURES WERE ON THE FRONT (see bottom of page 4 of the staff report: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/2614%20HBR%20APPG%2010.pdf).
So, the original bill required valid voter signatures be rejected by the Secretary of State — now Senate Bill 6449 requires valid voter signatures be thrown in the garbage by initiative sponsors (scan down to Section 13 of the bill: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6449-S.E.pdf).
Either way, the result is the same – under SB 6449, valid voter signatures WILL NEVER BE COUNTED. Once the Secretary of State accepts petitions, the valid voter signatures on the petitions WILL COUNT (because of court rulings). So they’ve come up with a sneaky, conniving, Machiavellian scheme to ensure they never receive them — by requiring initiative sponsors to never turn them in in the first place.
And just to add a bureaucratic nightmare to the process, Senate Bill 6449 requires initiative sponsors to fill out an affidavit for every petition sheet attesting that we’ve verified that the back of the petition is filled out. 17,000-20,000 petition sheets are turned in so that means initiative sponsors must complete 17,000-20,000 affidavits.
And then there’s the body cavity search on citizens who collect signatures. Senate Bill 6449 requires registration, licensing, photo headshots, fingerprinting, criminal background checks, names, personal signatures, & home addresses of citizens who collect signatures.
The Democrats and their union backers REALLY want to identity and target ANYONE who collects signatures on petitions — it’s what they’ve always wanted. This appears on their own website: “If you see a signature gatherer, we suggest you ask signature gatherers if they are being paid, find out their names and take their pictures (alone). ‘We would like to identify as many as possible.’” “Keep an eye out. The best way to beat this is at the signature gathering stage. Please let us know if you see those paid signature hunters in your area and let them know in no uncertain terms what their job will do to your job! Every signature we stop is one more Eyman has to pay for.” “If you see a signature gatherer, call us. We want to do all we can to stop them.” Washington State Council of County and City Employees (AFSCME – AFL-CIO).
Here’s more with pictures: http://www.voterswantmorechoices.com/harassment.asp
Here’s the 2 main reasons this anti-initiative bill is bad — (1) THE SYSTEM IS WORKING (2) OPPONENTS WANT TO STOP IT FROM WORKING:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/013699.html
Now that this anti-initiative bill has a full head of legislative steam, we are hopeful that other newspaper editorial boards, writers, and columnists will weigh in on this issue. Our state Constitution makes it clear that the Legislature can only pass bills that facilitate the initiative process, they cannot pass bills that frustrate it.
SB 6449 certainly do not make the process easier, it makes it harder. It should be rejected.
Regards, Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, ph: 425-493-9127, email: tim_eyman@comcast.net, http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com
Affidavit of Danielle M, including photos, documenting harassment while gathering signatures: http://www.voterswantmorechoices.com/harassment.asp
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.”
BELLINGHAM HERALD EDITORIAL BOARD: Legislature must not attempt to obstruct initiative process: Every year, it seems, some legislators decide to attack our state’s initiative process. As always, we deplore those attacks. The initiative process is a constitutional right in Washington, spelled out very clearly in our state constitution. There really has to be something better for the Legislature to spend its time on.This bill, like others suggested in previous years, seems like the Legislature trying to do anything it can to limit the right of citizens to create initiatives. That is a serious mistake, one that we urge legislators to reject.
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.”
EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE SPOKESMAN REVIEW: Reject bill imposing rules on signature gatherers: it “unreasonably attempts to avoid the mess by making it harder for citizens to use the initiative and referendum recourse that has been available to them for nearly a century. … That is cumbersome if not onerous – all to discourage citizens from writing their own laws or repealing those passed by the Legislature. … Ultimately, individual voters still choose whether to sign a petition and how to vote. The Legislature is facing a plan that would restrict those choices. The plan needs to be rejected.”
COLUMBIAN EDITORIAL BOARD: Blocking democracy: Two misguided solutions to nonexistent problems are clattering around the Legislature. They should be ignored and discounted for precisely what they are: blatant attempts to obstruct public participation in government. (Legislators) want to erect frivolous hoops through which signature gathers would have to jump. We’re more interested in democracy than gymnastics. J. Anderson (73 years old) who testified before the house committee: “There are a lot of wonderful people who live in the state of Washington but there are a lot of real weirdos out there too. I feel it’s utterly callous disregard for our safety and our protection that if you are gonna force us into doing that. And at my age, and many of the other women that work with us are in their 60′s and even the ones in their 30′s and that men that are out there are all in danger. I’ve been spit on. I’ve had French Fries thrown at me, which doesn’t hurt but it’s not very nice. I’ve had people follow me to my car. I’ve had notes left on my vehicles. I just feel like the world is crawling with sex offenders and I’m going to sit here with a label on me saying who my name is and who I’m working for and they can pull this up on the internet somewhere. And there’s identity thieves out there. I think you haven’t thought this thing through, Mr. McDermott. I really don’t think you’ve got me in mind. I just don’t think you’re working for me. And I don’t think you’re working for a lot of other people that are out there doing their First Amendment rights. And I beg you that there’s nothing wrong — this is grassroots, it’s grassroots at its finest — no matter how much money and all we keep talking about is all this money — it’s grassroots. I come from Iowa where (interrupted by Chairman Hunt) … Just let us have our initiative process.” McDermott responds: “I’m not taking it away.” Ms. Anderson answers softly: “You’re making it hard.” Gary Jacobsen (an elderly gentleman) also testified against the bill: “I’ve never been harassed by the public as I’m being harassed by the Legislature that I helped put into office. What possible threat do I pose that I need be licensed, regulated and leaned on by the government. I’m singled out because I might possibly bring a conflicting point of view to the ballot. I find this to be discriminatory and outrageous. Shame on those who put another burden on a hardworking taxpayer doing a legitimate job. Just please leave me alone.”
47.606209
-122.332071
