1. I disagree with Reed's assertion that signing a referendum in order to have it voted on Democratically by the people of the state, is in effect, sponsoring legislation. Legislators are in Olympia to legislate but sponsorship of bills in Olympia is far different than a grass roots supported referendum that puts the deciding up or down vote before the voters and should be treated as such. I believe in the voters having the final say rather than legislators, and would likely sign any petition that facilitated this whether I supported it or not.

Having the pink mafia threatening to "pay you a visit" to explain where your thinking has gone wrong is plain and simple intimidation tactics and harrassment. Sam Reed needs to pull his head out and get some blood flowing to the brain. He's been in Olympia too long.

Posted by Rick D. at November 24, 2009 09:17 AM

2. I would restrict the names of the initiative and referendum petition signers from becoming public record. The names would only be released to established Entities known to serve the public at large. Such as, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

Posted by Daniel at November 24, 2009 09:26 AM

3. Response from Eyman:

Prior to 1972, two Attorney General opinions said that petitions were not public records and so the personal information on them was protected.

In 1972, Initiative 276 (Sam Reed erroneously refers to it as I-172 above) was approved by voters and it made PETITIONS public records but the personal information on them, under the initiative, had to be redacted or removed.

The following year, AFTER the passage of I-276, then Secretary of State Lud Kramer refused to turn over the personal information on petitions to a state senator.

Kramer said "I will not violate public trust."

There was a lawsuit, and the Court ruled that Secretary Kramer was correct not to turn over that personal information.

The doublespeak in Sam Reed's email needs to be translated: PETITIONS are public records but the personal information on them -- the names, signatures, and home addresses of the citizens -- those were always redacted or removed prior to his policy change in 2006. The policy of every other Secretary of State was to redact the personal information.

Only in 2006 did Sam Reed change the policy. Rather than taking responsibility for that change, he instead said "that's the way it's always been" which is not true.

We're hopeful that the Courts will revert the policy back to what was in effect from 1912 through 2006: if citizens sign initiative or referendum petitions, they don't have to be concerned that the Secretary of State is helping facilitate harassment, identity theft, and commercial exploitation of citizen signers' personal information. That's the way it was for 95 years and it's a reasonable, sensible policy.

Finally, when Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks agreed to stop Sam Reed from selling 3.4 million names, signatures, and home addresses on 11 initiatives for $1500, he said:

Page 8: "We know that the state Constitution grants privacy rights under Article I, Section 7 greater than what the federal constitution grants in the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment ... Let me see if I can say something simply for all the citizens who are monitoring this, and without any notes. In one sense this comes down to the question is why do we have a curtain on the voting booth?"

Page 11-13: "... the Secretary of State's office wants everything open and clear, so who can fault them for that? But where they run into problems is what about this constitutional right to privacy? ... The state can show cases ... where the government's been allowed to invade personal privacy ... but always when there is a financial interest. ... But when it's not following the money, when it isn't based on financial considerations, when it is signing a petition outside the grocery store and no money is involved, and the person signing may not even vote for it if it reaches the ballot, then it's very close to a personal vote. ... So if it's like a vote, then my question is back to why do we have curtains on the voting booth if that's the basis of this? ... I think it's a very important issue. I'm glad it's drawn the attention that it has."

-- END --

Posted by Tim Eyman at November 24, 2009 09:50 AM

4. No Mike, you saying that I seek to demonize and marginalize gays and lesbians is patently false (and is also the pot calling the kettle black). I have no problem with gays or lesbians. I have gay friends. I just don't find it appropriate to threaten or harass people and businesses that have a different opinion than your own. Or perhaps you don't think that disrupting church services and physically assaulting old ladies is tormenting.

You statement "those that want the law to be upheld" is also incorrect. That's precisely what R-71 was all about. If you don't care for the referendum process and think that no laws passed by the legislature should be put to a vote of the people then perhaps you should move to a different state.

Something tells me though, and please correct me if I'm wrong, if someone put forth a referendum seeking to repeal the states DOMA laws that you'd be all for that. I'd also venture to say it's a safe bet that at some point in your life you've signed a referendum petition of some sort.

You're welcome to disagree with me but please don't throw about wild accusations insinuating that I'm homophobic. Keep it on the issues and don't try to demonize or marginalize me or others that disagree with you.

Posted by MarkGriswold at November 24, 2009 10:07 AM

5. I just don't find it appropriate to threaten or harass people and businesses that have a different opinion than your own.

and that wasn't happening.

way to go, you have a gay friend, so what, that doesn't make you a bigot, now?

Posted by mik at November 24, 2009 10:21 AM

6. Mark says, " this matter has been greatly exacerbated by the actions of a group of hate-filled gay rights activists who sought the names to torment those who disagree with their views,"

Mike @ 3 responds, "this is patently false. this is you assuming what those that want the law to be upheld think.

what is unfortunate is your effort to demonize and marginalize gays and lesbians, mark."

Ok, mike, so why do homosexual activists and their advocates want the names of those who signed the referendum, if not to torment them?

Posted by Saltherring at November 24, 2009 10:26 AM

7. "I have gay friends." - Mark Griswold

Do you know how black people make fun of white people who say "I'm not racist. I have black friends"? There's a reason they do this. It's patronizing and condescending. These black people become one's "black friends" as opposed to just "friends" and we see the real reason for the friendship -- liberal guilt. It makes so and so (usually an uppity urbanite) feel better about their own tolerance and acceptance of others to point at their black friend and say "oooh, look at me, I'm friends with that guy and he's black. yay me."

So congratulations, Mark. You have gay friends, so you're free to think whatever you want about R-71 or marriage or equal rights in general. ugh. condescending.

Posted by AD at November 24, 2009 10:55 AM

8. My opinion is that when a person signs a petition it should be treated the same as if you stepped behind the current to cast your vote ? private. If a list were released it would in essence disclose how you voted and that is a sacred right of privacy. I do not agree with Sam?s statement that a person that signs a petition is the same as a legislator that sponsors a bill. Legislators have chosen to make their opinions public by accepting a job and getting paid for it.

Posted by Scott at November 24, 2009 10:59 AM

9. Tim-- I'm unaware of the Secretary of State's Office ever releasing petition sheets with all of the petition info redacted. In what way would that be release of a public record -- to have all the fields blacked out? Either it's confidential, nondisclosable information, as required by a court decision or legislative/initiative approval of an exemption from the Public Records Act approved by the voters in 1972; or it's a legitimate public record. The Secretary, adhering to advice from legal counsel, has the latter policy. It is, of course, being reviewed by the courts as we speak. -- David Ammons, Office of the Secretary of State

Posted by Ammons at November 24, 2009 11:01 AM

10. I'm glad there are people like Tim Eyman out there who don't swallow the government line and who have the time and resources to seriously challenge any assertions government makes.

Whether or not I agree on the issue with Tim Eyman or Secretary Reed is irrelevant. The fact that there is a discussion means that my rights are better protected.

Posted by Jonathan Gardner at November 24, 2009 11:10 AM

11. AD, that's humorous that you think I have liberal guilt and that's the only reason I mention I have gay friends.

Actually, the only reason I mention that I have gay friends is to provide some evidence that I am not a bigot and I don't seek to marginalize or demonize gay people. Now I suppose I could have gay friends and still want to demonize them. Heck, I could be gay myself and just be self-loathing, but neither of those things make much sense, now do they.

And, btw, it's mikeg that chose to turn this into a discussion on my views on homosexuality when, if you read the post, it actually has to do with public disclosure.

That being said, this is the last I'm going to say anything about it. If you want to talk about public disclosure, feel free to post. If you want to talk about homosexuality, go start your own blog.

Posted by Mark Griswold at November 24, 2009 11:19 AM

12. On behalf of Secretary Kramer in 1973, Don Whiting wrote a letter to Senator Donohue explaining why citizen signers personal information would need to be redacted:

July 13, 1973

To: The Honorable Hubert F. Donohue, Washington State Senator
From: Donald F. Whiting, Asst. Supervisor of Elections

We would like to cite certain additional items in conjunction with our refusal of your July 7 request for copies of petitions for Initiative 282.

Section 26 of Chapter 1, Laws of 1973 (Initiative Measure No. 276) provides that "to the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, an agency shall delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes any public record". It is our belief that the release of the names or addresses of persons in Thurston County who have signed Initiative 282 would constitute such an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy. Since these are the only items of information on the initiative petition, the deletion of these identifying details would effectively remove all of the information entered upon those petitions. We cannot see that the petitions with such details deleted would in any way satisfy your request. We have previously indicated the appropriate appeals which you may take to this denial.

-- END --

The lawsuit was called Chaney v Kramer and the Court affirmed Secretary Kramer's position to protect these citizens' privacy.

What's pathetic is having a Secretary of State who is unwilling to take responsibility for his decision to overturn 95 years of precedent and put millions of innocent citizens in danger of harassment, identity theft, and commercial exploitation for signing a petition.

Posted by Tim Eyman at November 24, 2009 02:07 PM