Box Turtle Bulletin

Gay Group Sues Washington Secretary of State

Per the WA Secretary of State’s blogsite:

A lawsuit has been filed in King County Superior Court by Washington Families Standing Together requesting a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the Secretary of State from certifying Referendum 71 to the ballot.

The complaint:

5. The Secretary of State (“the Secretary”) is responsible for overseeing the determination of whether a referendum qualifies for the ballot. Striving toward the laudable goal of voter enfranchisement, the Secretary has made it a priority to accept signatures whenever possible. Unfortunately, in so doing, the Secretary did not comply with certain statutory requirements. In the course of the signature verification process for Referendum 71, it became apparent that the Secretary , relying on advice from the Attorney General, was ignoring the requirement directed by the Legislature that the anti-fraud declaration be signed by each signature-gatherer. Plaintiffs have received confirmation from the SOS that the Secretary has accepted thousands of petitions on which the signature-gatherer who circulated the petition did not sign the declaration.

6. Likewise the Plaintiffs received confirmation from the SOS that the Secretary was ignoring the requirement that only individuals who were duly registered voters could legally sign petitions. On August 17, the Secretary instructed his staff to disregard the date reflected in the voter files as the voter registration date and accept signatures from individuals who were not registered as o f the date they signed the petition or even by the date that the Referendum 71 petitions were filed. As a result, signatures by individuals not registered to vote at the time they signed a petition were counted toward the total number of signatures required to place Referendum71 on the ballot, in contravention of State law and in violation of the sworn oath every person signing a petition must make.

Specifically,

21. Protect Marriage Washington sorted and organized its petitions at the bottom of the Capitol stairs in Olympia before delivering the petitions to SOS staff. In the course of this final sort, PMW realized that many signature-gatherers had not filled out the required declaration on the back of the petition. SOS staff observed as PMW personel obtained a signature stamp from Larry Stickney, the campaign manager to PMW, and affixed Mr. Stickney\’s stamp to many petitions whose signature-gatherer had not completed the declaration.
…
23. Persuant to a public disclosure request, Plaintiffs have learned that the Secretary accepted 33,966 signatures on 2,508 petitions (“Unverified Petitions”) where Mr. Stickney\’s name had been stamped in the signature-gatherer declaration. It is a violation of State law to sign a petition circulated by another or to sign someone else\’s name on the declaration.
…
37. As a result, Washington Families observers have witnessed SOS staff accepting signatures from voters who registered after the Referendum 71 petitions were files (and thus, who could not possibly have been registered at the time they signed the petition or even by the time the petitions were submitted to the Secretary).
…
42. On August 18, Washington Families asked the SOS to review more that 1,000 possible errors spotted by observers with regard to signatures and addresses that did not appear to match an petitions where a single individual appeared to have signed on behalf of several other people. The SOS had previously reviewed 222 similarly noted errors from observers and had discovered that 13% had been accepted in error that should have been rejected. The SOS nonetheless rejected the request to review the next sample noted by the teams of observers and submitted by the lead observers.

A Texas Lutheran Bishop’s Perspective on the ELCA Vote

Rev. Michael Rinehart, Bishop of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is in the process of burying his father-in-law. And it is from that perspective that he discusses his thoughts on the recent vote to allow partnered gay clergy.

Rinehart’s words are thoughtful and wise and truly compassionate. His entire letter is worth reading; here is a sample:

Susan goes through her Father’s clothing. His shirts and pants, are so him. They smell like him. They look like him. She decides what to keep and what to give away. She decides to give away his furniture except for a small oval end table that has personal meaning. It’s an odd piece, but it has emotional significance. It’s so hard to let go of things.

I think people feel this way about change in general. The world has changed. The quaint hyper-patriotic euphoric post-WWII baby-boom world no longer exists. People are grieving the loss. I may struggle with the strange hermeneutics of the Bible being employed, but I understand that there are people who see the world a certain way, and it’s changing fast. I wonder what it felt like when we started ordaining women, for those who were strongly opposed. What exactly were they afraid of? Sometimes it’s hard to get at. It just may be a loss of what was. I think of America after the Emancipation Proclamation, when European Americans had to accept African Americans into mainstream society. Why was this so hard? What were they afraid of? The slave-enhanced economy might falter? The gene-pool might be weakened? The fragile fabric of society might be somehow irreparably damaged? I’m not sure.

August 25 Referendum 71 Update

With 110,288 signatures reviewed (80.1%), a total of 97,261 have been approved (80.7% of those needed). The cumulative fail-rate is 11.77%.

No new “third check” signatures moved from “not registered” to “accepted” today. I don’t yet know why. I estimate that about another 800 signatures that have been reviewed will be moved for an adjusted fail-rate of 11.05%.

However, the daily rejection rate for missing signatures was far below the trend so I really don’t know what they did today.

UPDATE:

For those wondering what\’s happening with the “third check,” the third checkers are still reviewing the outcome of, and compiling the stats for, the volumes past No. 220. By tomorrow night, we hope to have the final numbers for another 100 volumes.

Late Registrations Accepted by Washington Secretary of State

The Elections Division of the Washington Secretary of State has clarified that it will count as “accepted” the signatures of persons not registered to vote at the time they signed so long as their registration has been processed by the time that their name is triple-checked with the live database.

In other words, the deadline to sign Referendum 71 was July 25th. But because most names have not yet been triple checked, if you were not registered at that time (or you just made up a bunch of names) you could probably still register today and get your signature added back into the accepted pile.

There is no deadline for registering to vote for purposes of qualifying an initiative or referendum; as a practical matter, the deadline is the date that the signature on the petition is checked. Checkers are instructed that a signature on a petition is valid if they find a person with the same name in the voter registration file, and the signature on the petition matches the signature in the voter registration file. The registration date has never been a limiting factor.

I recognize that the purpose of the petition process is to reflect the will of a sizable segment of the electorate. I also understand that elections officials want to increase voter registration and see the petition process as a tool for increasing participation in democracy. I further get that they don’t want to deny a legitimate citizen the right to be heard due to a technicality about when those who took their registration filed the forms.

But this policy appears to be both susceptible to abuse and possibly inconsistent with state law.

… when the person or organization demanding any referendum of an act or part of an act of the legislature has obtained a number of signatures of legal voters equal to or exceeding four percent of the votes cast for the office of governor at the last regular gubernatorial election prior to the submission of the signatures for verification, the petition containing the signatures may be submitted to the secretary of state for filing.

I see no language allowing provisional voters or future voters or unregistered-but-intending-to-register-some-day voters.

August 24th Washington Referendum 71 Update

A total of 103,898 signatures have been reviewed, or 75.5%
A total of 91,716 have been accepted, or 76.1% of those required.

The current fail rate for non-deferred signatures is 11.69%. However, this is accurate for only the first 220 volumes; the rest is subject to revision for registrations not processed in the data base before it was downloaded. I project that there may be perhaps another 700 signatures that are considered rejected at the moment which will ultimately be accepted.

At this point we are working under assumptions and guesses, but the “real” fail-rate is probably around 11.0% of all inspected signatures. Unless there is a high fail-rates for the last quarter of signatures – perhaps 16.8%, then this referendum may qualify. Keep in mind that we do not know whether the petitions are homogeneous or if the last quarter is cleaner or less clean than the first three quarters.

A New Wrench in the Washington Count

There is good news and bad news in the Washington Secretary of State’s verification of signatures for Referendum 71, the effort to stop enhancements to domestic partnerships from taking effect.

Good news: the fail rate seems to be inching closer to 12.4% every day. With 64.1% inspected, the permanant rejection rate is now 11.92%. But…. not exactly.

Bad news: there is another level of inspection which has previously not been included in my calculations. The position of the Secretary of State is that if 120,737 registered voters signed the petition, it goes on the ballot. In our reviews of the rejected signature rates, we have not been accounting for some valid signatures that are currently considered rejected.

The SoS is comparing signatures to a copy of the registration as of a specific date. But if a voter both registered and signed the petition on the same day (a not-uncommon occurance) then they would be a valid signature but their registration would not show up on the copy. So a final inspection is made of those signatures that have not been found on the rolls to see if their voter registration was processed after the database was secured.

Our checkers are finding in the live database about 12 percent of the names that were originally “not found” on the late June database copy. That is, of course, because the referendum organizers were encouraging people to sign the petition and register to vote at the same time, so many people actually registered to vote in July for the specific purpose of signing this petition. It is common practice for signature gatherers to register voters while circulating initiative and referendum petitions. In the past, signature gatherers have submitted voter registrations during the signature collection effort.

So even if there is a 12.4% fail rate, some of those “permanantly rejected signatures” will find themselves back in the accepted pile. About 84% of rejected signatures are from the “not registered” category and of those about 12% will later be deemed to be good.

Assuming that these will be added back, the “real” rejected signature rate is about 10.72%. So while the rate edges up daily, yet again our assumptions that this will fail have to be adjusted and it is – as the SoS has said all along – too close to call.

Lutherans Adopt New Statement on Sexuality

Today the Lutheran convention voted 676 to 338 to adopt a new social statement of sexuality, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. This was exactly the two-thirds required for passage of the statement.

The statement specifies:

The historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions have recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, reflecting Mark 10: 6–9: “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one put asunder.”

But it also seeks to address the public accountability and legal support for “lifelong monogamous same-gender relationships.”

We in the ELCA recognize that many of our sisters and brothers in same-gender relationships incerely desire the support of other Christians for living faithfully in all aspects of their lives, including their sexual fidelity. In response, we have drawn deeply on our Lutheran theological heritage and Scripture. This has led, however, to differing and conscience-bound understandings about the place of such relationships within the Christian community. We have come to various conclusions concerning how to regard lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships, including whether and how to publicly recognize their lifelong commitments.

And, indeed, they are various:

This church recognizes that, with conviction and integrity:

· On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced that same-gender sexual behavior is sinful, contrary to biblical teaching and their understanding of natural law. They believe same-gender sexual behavior carries the grave danger of unrepentant sin. They therefore conclude that the neighbor and the community are best served by calling people in same-gender sexual relationships to repentance for that behavior and to a celibate lifestyle. Such decisions are intended to be accompanied by pastoral response and community support.

· On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced that homosexuality and even lifelong, monogamous, homosexual relationships reflect a broken world in which some relationships do not pattern themselves after the creation God intended. While they acknowledge that such relationships may be lived out with mutuality and care, they do not believe that the neighbor or community are best served by publicly recognizing such relationships as traditional marriage.

· On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced that the scriptural witness does not address the context of sexual orientation and lifelong loving and committed relationships that we experience today. They believe that the neighbor and community are best served when same-gender relationships are honored and held to high standards and public accountability, but they do not equate these relationships with marriage. They do, however, affirm the need for community support and the role of pastoral care, and may wish to surround lifelong monogamous relationships or covenant unions with prayer.

· On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced that the scriptural witness does not address the context of sexual orientation and committed relationships that we experience today. They believe that the neighbor and community are best served when same-gender relationships are lived out with lifelong and monogamous commitments that are held to the same rigorous standards, sexual ethics, and status as heterosexual marriage. They surround such couples and their lifelong commitments with prayer to live in ways that glorify God, find strength for the challenges that will be faced, and serve others. They believe same-gender couples should avail themselves of social and legal support for themselves, their children and other dependents, and seek the highest legal accountability available for their relationships.

In other words, Lutherans run the gamut from those who think you’re a threat to society to those who want to plan your marriage to their nephew. However, they are in agreement as to some social positions impacting the gay community.

While Lutherans hold various convictions regarding lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships, this church is united on many critical issues. It opposes all forms of verbal or physical harassment and assault based on sexual orientation. It supports legislation and policies to protect civil rights and to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and public services. It has called upon congregations and members to welcome, care for, and support same-gender couples and their families, and to advocate for their legal protection.

In synopsis, when it comes to Lutheran belief on same-sex relationships the church does not define marriage in an inclusive way but recognizes that there is no concensus on the approach to same-sex realtionships. However, it has endorsed employment non-discrimination legislation and opposes attacks, both physical and verbal. It also seems that it doesn’t buy into reorientation as either a requirement or a possibility.

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, it has conceded that those who support same-sex relationships are not doing so out of some liberal appeasement or thwarting of the clear teaching of scripture. (“The difference between interpreters should not be understood as a conflict between those who seek to be ‘true to Scripture\’ and those who seek to ‘twist the Bible\’ to their own liking. The disagreements are genuine.”) Rather, they do so on the basis on conscience-bound belief and they are encouraged to “live out their faith in the local and global community of the baptized.”

Conservative Lutherans were not pleased with the vote:

Lutheran CORE (Coalition for Reform) decried the document: “We mourn the decision by the Churchwide Assembly to reject the clear teaching of the Bible that God’s intention for marriage is the relationship of one man and one woman. It is tragic that such a large number of ELCA members were willing to overturn the clear teaching of the Bible as it has been believed and confessed by Christians for nearly 2,000 years.”

But I find this statement to an admirable step in the direction of full inclusion.

Conservatives Refuse To Predict Dire Consequences For Same-Sex Marriage

Townhall.com is probably the last place one would expect to find an article supporting arguments made by proponents of same-sex marriage, but Steve Chapman is mystified that no one who opposes same-sex marriage is willing to take him up on his challenge. His challenge is simple: We now have five states with same-sex marriage, with a sixth one (Maine) pending a November referendum. (By the way, have you donated lately?) Most of the others offer no recognition of same-sex unions whatsoever.

Chapman believes that this presents perfect laboratory conditions: an experimental condition and a control group. He writes, “in the next few years, we will have a chance to compare social trends in the states permitting same-sex marriage against social trends in the others.” So Chapman contacted three conservative opponents to same-sex marriage — Maggie Gallagher, Stanley Kurtz, and David Blankenhorn — and asked them to offer their predictions:

You would think they would react like Albert Pujols when presented with a hanging curveball. Yet none was prepared to forecast what would happen in same-sex marriage states versus other states.

Conservatives often predict catastrophic consequences for states that recognize same-sex marriage. Maggie Gallagher has even likened it to the end of civilization.Stanly Kurtz started a cottage industry blaming the decline of marriage in Scandinavia on same-sex marriage. But when put to the test, none of them will stand behind  their statements. What does that tell you about their convictions?

Washington Anti-Gays are Starting to Pray

Every day the fail rate for Referendum 71 is edging closer to 12.4% at which point the effort will go down in flames. After today’s count, at 57.5% reviewed, the cumulative fail rate is 11.63%.

And anti-gays are starting to worry. And bitch. And pray.

Faith and Freedom Network president Gary Randall sent an email out to supporters to complain about the Secretary of State’s verification procedures.

“SURGE” is the operative word. Speed has replaced accuracy.
As the homosexual lobby has increased their pressure on the Secretary to “hurry up” on processing the signatures, the error rate has risen. We have consistently reported that as the speed of checking has been accelerated, the error rate has risen.

Now anyone familiar with the process of looking for error – in anything – knows that going too fast doesn’t result in more identified false discrepancies but rather in missing those that are overlooked. But Randall isn’t doing his best truth telling this week.

The hurry-up plan was put in place as the homosexual lobby discovered that the faster the checkers checked, the more names were discarded as not valid. They began to put pressure on the Secretary a couple of weeks ago. He and his staff have responded, by setting arbitrary deadlines toward which they could surge, increasing the number of checkers, increasing the number of hours of checking and putting new policies in place which would hurry the process and result in an increase in the error rate.

I suspect that Randall knows that his email list is unaware that every rejected signature is scrutinized by a master-checker resulting in many being reinstated, a process that confused and worried gay bloggers and commenters when the accepted totals went up. And “Blame the liberal Secretary of State” is a better cry than “We failed to get enough signatures.”

Much hangs in the balance today.
This is a call to Prayer and a call to Action.
1. Please pray that Secretary Sam Reed and the public servants he employs, will have the integrity to carry out their duties on the R-71 count in a fair and honest way, as they are duty bound to serve all the citizens of the state.
2. Action. Please call or email the Secretary’s office today. Tell him to, “Slow Down Sam.” Ask him to please allow enough time for all signatures to be checked carefully and correctly. He owes you that. Be respectful, but firm. He and his office will assure you they have done elections for many years and they have great systems in place, etc., etc. and are fair. Assure him you expect nothing less on this issue and you feel you are not getting that at this point.

Needless to say, accusations of bias and carelessness did not sit well with the Secretary’s office. They responded on their blog site:

Sponsors of Referendum 71, the effort to overturn Washington\’s new “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law, are accusing the state Elections Division of rushing the signature-verification process and being biased against their effort. Election officials at the Secretary of State\’s office are pushing back, strongly defending their crew of signature-checkers as conducting the process with great care and diligence, not rushing through – and certainly not showing bias one way or the other about the legislation in question. [empasis in original]

They go on to present a point by point refutation of Randall’s accusations. It’s not difficult to see that they were not at all happy with his email.

Now, I’m not exactly sure what prayer Randall thinks his supporters should pray, but I guess it goes something like this:

Dear God,

I know that this referendum is designed to deny rights to some people that I hold dear for myself. And I know that we employed deceit in collecting signatures. And I also know that our entire purpose for doing this is out of our animus towards your gay children.

But please God, bless our efforts and make the signature inspectors confused so that they will consider as valid those signatures that are not eligible and we can go forward with a campaign of anti-gay lies and demonization.

Amen.

Nevadans Can Pre-Apply for Domestic Partnerships

Nevada’s everything-but-marriage Domestic Partnership law will go into effect on October 1st. But the Secretary of State is allowing couples to start preregistering on Monday so as to allow the state to issue certificates on the first day they are legal. (LV Review-Journal)

“Gauging on the inquiries we have received, we expect a very, very high volume,” Miller said. “That is why we are offering preregistration.”

Sen. David Parks, the author of the domestic partnership bill, notes that neighboring non-Nevadans may take advantage of the registration, even if their state does not recognize their relationship.

He said a couple from St. George, Utah, called him and expressed concern that they have nothing to show when they travel that they are a couple devoted to each other.

The certificate may also assist in applying for benefits from such employers as offer them.

Olson / Boies Prop 8 Trial Date Set

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker has set the date for the start of the trial over whether Proposition 8 violates the US Constitution: January 11, 2010. He also ruled on whether other parties could insert themselves into the case in order to protect their own interests. (SJ Merc)

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker also during Wednesday’s 90-minute hearing denied the motions of a coalition of three gay-rights groups, as well as of the conservative Campaign for California Families, to intervene as parties to the case. Neither proved an interest not already adequately represented by the case’s plaintiffs — same-sex couples wishing to marry — or the proponents of Proposition 8, he ruled.

But Walker did grant a motion to intervene from the City and County of San Francisco, which he said is asserting governmental interests — lost tourism dollars, and the cost of providing social services to those against whom Proposition 8 discriminates — that the plaintiffs don’t represent.

This leaves Olson and Boies free to craft the discrimination based on animus argument that they feel is most convincing. But it also leaves the defendants free from CCF’s nutcase Randy Thomasson from getting up and proving Olson and Boies’ argument.

It appears that all of the parties are committed to fast-tracking the case, though it will be quite some time before it can be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The January trial is likely to be the first step in a long process before the Proposition 8 challenge can reach the Supreme Court. Even after Walker decides the case, it is certain to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals some time next year, and that court could take months or longer to rule before the challenge can reach the high court.

Those concerned that the time is not right for this case to be tried before the SCOTUS may wish to consider how the referendum movement to overturn Proposition 8 could impact the case. It appears that this case could reach the Supreme Court between 2010 and 2012. Those who fear a loss at the top of the judicial system may find it beneficial to try and derail the case by reversing Proposition 8 before the case can be heard.

Why Ted Olson Supports Marriage Equality

Theodore B. Olson (Justin Maxon/The New York Times)

The New York Times has an in-depth profile of Ted Olsen, the conservative half of the Conservative/Liberal doppelganger legal team challenging California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. When Ted Olson announced that he was joining the effort to overturn the ban in federal court, it came as an unimaginably shock to those who knew his work. After all, this is lawyer who had worked to dismantle affirmative action and worked in George W. Bush’s administration where he argued for the expansion of the president’s wartime powers to combat terrorism. This new crusade left his compatriots baffled:

“For conservatives who don\’t like what I\’m doing, it\’s, ‘If he just had someone in his family we\’d forgive him,\’ ” Mr. Olson said. “For liberals it\’s such a freakish thing that it\’s, ‘He must have someone in his family, otherwise a conservative couldn\’t possibly have these views.\’ It\’s frustrating that people won\’t take it on face value.”

But Olson sees his position as perfectly logical and consistent with his anti-affirmative action positions: He believes that California’s Prop 8 represents governmental-mandated discrimination. And he intends to use Justice Antonin Scalia’s blistering dissent in Lawrence v. Texas as an argument for overturning the ban. Scalia acknowledged in his dissent that the majority in Lawrence had indeed opened the door to same-sex marriage. Already, the Justice Department, in a separate case, cited Scalia’s dissent in declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act has nothing to do with promoting procreation. That argument will certainly be an important component of this case as well. In a twist of delicious irony, his angry dissent may turn out the be a huge gift to the LGBT community.

Meanwhile, the parties in Perry v. Schwarzenegger will appear before Judge Vaughn Walker in U.S. District Court in San Francisco today to discuss who will be arguing the case. One issue is whether the ACLU, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the City of San Francisco, or the Campaign for California Families will be allowed to intervene and become parties to the lawsuit. The first three groups sought to intervene despite earlier opposing the lawsuit. Olson’s legal team opposes the move, citing the LGBT coalition’s earlier opposition to the lawsuit. Chris Geidner has a good rundown on today’s hearing.

Olson is a veteran of fifty-five Supreme court cases, having won forty-four of them in his career.

Hope for Referendum 71’s Failure in Washington

Today the signature verification process crossed the half way point; now 53% of signatures have been inspected. With 72,976 reviewed, and 8,229 permanently rejected, the fail rate for the referendum now stands at 11.28%. *

Of the 64,713 remaining signatures, if less than 55,844 are valid – or a fail-rate of the remaining signatures of 13.74%, then the legislature’s domestic partnership enhancements become law without requiring a vote of the electorate.

And now the good news: today’s posted results were on 7,445 signatures and included 1,028 permanent rejections, a rate of 13.81%. If the remaining signatures do no better than today, the petition will fail. And while there is a chance that today is an anomoly, this is still a hopeful sign.

* my fail-rate differs from that of the Secretary of State because they include as “falure” those signatures that are waiting for a clean copy from the county and which will likely be reclassified as “accepted” when received.

Boies and Olson to go after ‘Yes on 8’ Campaign

I have been following the federal challenge to Prop 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and thought I would give BTB readers an update (there’s not much in the rest of the LGBT press).

As you might remember, former Bush v. Gore foes Boies and Olson sparked controversy among gay legal rights groups after teaming up to file a federal challenge to Prop. 8 in California District Court. Organizations like Lambda Legal, which have spent years focusing on incremental legal wins are afraid it’s not the right time to put all the movement’s chips on the table, but seeing as Boies and Olson are going ahead anyway, they want in on the action and have asked to join the suit.

Judge Walker is set to hear opposing arguments tomorrow over whether they should be allowed in, a motion Boies and Olson have opposed. My guess is that the judge will allow Lambda Legal, the City of San Francisco, and similar organization to join the suit, or at least that’s what I hope; these organizations have been fighting the good fight long before the fame-mongering pair came on the scene.

Today, all parties to the suit filed another round of “case management statements,” proposals that outline what the trial will cover, what legal questions will be addressed, and which sort of evidence will be gathered and presented.  What is interesting about these statements is that the case is shaping up to be much broader than the state challenge to Prop. 8, which hinged on the technical distinction between an “amendment” and a “revision.”

Crucially, the plaintiffs plan to go after the Yes on 8 Campaign to show that they were motivated by anti-gay animus. This will involve having the Yes on 8 people testify and hand over documents relevant to the campaign.

If some gay rights groups were frustrated by the legal language and fine lines involved in the state challenge, this is looking like it will be the big fight they wanted.

Stay tuned.

Washington Fail-Rate Up Slightly

With almost half of the signatures reviewed, the fail-rate of the petition is about 11%.

65,531 inspected (47.6%)
7,201 permanently rejected
10.99% fail-rate*

However, the cumulative fail rate by the end of the process must be above 12.4% or the domestic partner enhancements will be subject to the whim of the voters.

One area where there is hope is in the category of those rejected because they are duplicates. This rate is increasing daily. For example, the percentage of signatures found to be duplicate on the third day of inspection was 0.37%, those rejected last Wednesday were 0.74% of votes inspected, and those posted today as duplicates were 1.66%. This is expected to continue to increase.

* my fail-rate differs from that reported by the WA Secretary of State due to my excluding temporary rejections.