Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Referendum 71 Cleared for Vote

Timothy Kincaid

September 8th, 2009

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee has rejected the arguments by Washington Families Standing Together that only signatures of actual registered voters collected in conformity with required procedures should be considered as valid towards the anti-gay referendum.

WFST may appeal the decision, but time is quickly running out.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Cole
September 8th, 2009 | LINK

We are probably going to lose but you should put up a fight anyway. Heterosexuals don’t want a level playing field. They want gay people to be severely disadvantaged. We see this with the haterosexual secretary of state refusing to defend the law requiring signatures be made public, heterosexual judge settle refusing to make the signatures public and now with this haterosexual judge tossing out this lawsuit because the counting was rigged and he’s fine with it.

APPROVE Referendum 71. Gay couples deserve the exact rights heterosexual couples have.
https://www.upwardstech.net/approvereferendum71

Burr
September 8th, 2009 | LINK

Allow me to be the first to say this:

ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!

Also this reaks of the utterly bogus decision to allow Obama and McCain onto the ballot in Texas despite them not following the rules and not filing before the deadline.

The whole petition process in many states is one huge sick joke.

Lurleen
September 8th, 2009 | LINK

Ballots get mailed out in 6 weeks. Washington Families Standing Together needs your help to reach voters all across the state to ensure they vote to Approve Referendum 71. Got to Approve71.org to see how you can help.

Voters will be asked to approve or reject the domestic partnership law. Vote APPROVED on Referendum 71 to preserve domestic partnerships in Washington.

Dan
September 8th, 2009 | LINK

It would be shocking to me if they didn’t appeal. Why? Because this matter is purely an issue of law. There were no disputed factual issues that had to be resolved by the Superior Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reviews the entire matter “de novo”, i.e., without giving any deference to the opinion of the Superior Court. Since this means in theory that WAFST has as good a shot in the Supreme Court as it did in the Superior Court, there would be no reason not to appeal.

It is amazing to me that this thing has gotten this far. There is no doubt in my mind that there are more than 1,400 improper signatures in the 121,000 accepted pile. The temps who accepted the 121,000 had 2 hours of training, according to the court filings. And every set of sigs that were double checked exposed significant mistakes by the temps. I do not understand why WAFST has not made any demand for relief on the basis of the master check issue. It is baffling.

Dan
September 8th, 2009 | LINK

I just read the most detailed report of today’s events that I have seen. It is from Slog. Apparently, the Thurston County complaint, in contrast to the first complaint, did make more of the master checker issue and the judge, while ruling against WAFST on all other issues, reserved judgment on the master checker signatures.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/09/08/vote-yes-on-referendum-71

Cole
September 9th, 2009 | LINK

Election officials are refusing to let WAFST check signatures.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/09/08/vote-yes-on-referendum-71&cb=a4ab2196796cc1251ab483ef8836bed1&layoutId=PostComment&view=comments#comment-2192351

paul j stein
September 9th, 2009 | LINK

It worked for former President Appointed Bush twice in FLORIDA! Send it to the Supreme Court USA for a clarification. Expose it all .

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.