February 04, 2007
Sam Reed should retract and apologize for issuing false information
As noted yesterday, Secretary of State Sam Reed is lobbying the legislature to criminalize per-signature compensation to initiative petition gatherers, on the basis of false information purporting to show that paid gatherers have a higher invalidity rate. Here's more confirmation that Reed's information is bogus.
According to Reed's spreadsheet, the 2004 initiatives with the highest rate of invalid signatures were I-297 and I-884. The spreadsheet characterizes these initiatives as paid signatures only (Column O = 'p'). But this page from the I-884 campaign and this newsletter from a I-297 sponsor [p. 2] report that both campaigns also relied heavily on volunteer signatures.
Similarly, the spreadsheet claims that the 2004 initiative with the lowest invalidity rate, R-55, was volunteer-only. But this article from the Seattle Times reports that the WEA also paid for signatures.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 04, 2007
11:28 AM | Email This
From: Tim Eyman
We sent this email today (Sunday):
February 4, 2007
To: Steve Excell, Assistant Secretary of State
From: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, and Mike Fagan, ph: 425-493-9127, email: email@example.com
cc: Secretary of State Sam Reed, Nick Handy, Katie Blinn, and Shane Hamlin
cc: House & Senate members
cc: All media outlets (newspapers, radio, TV)
cc: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state
RE: Your elections staff doesn't know which signatures came from non-paid versus paid
On January 30, you posted the following on Soundpolitics.com: "Our elections staff reports that the invalidation rate is generally much higher in initiative campaigns where the organizers use all-paid signature gathers versus those where all volunteers are used."
We've sent everyone in the Secretary of State's office numerous emails (two in August 2006, one in January 2007, and several in the past few days), as well as supporting documentation, that clearly demonstrates that your on-line post, your staff, and your office is systematically providing demonstrably false initiative data and, thus, demonstrably false conclusions to the press, the public, and legislators, both one-one-one and in public testimony before house and senate committees.
And regardless of whether signatures are gathered by volunteers or by people who are compensated, Oregon's experience shows that banning pay-per-sig NEARLY DOUBLES the invalid rate (avg was 17% before the law, 29% after the law). Michael Arno's testimony before House and Senate committees explains why.
Simply take the time to verify the information we've provided by contacting the Public Disclosure Commission and ADMIT THE ERRORS, CORRECT THE RECORD, AND TELL LEGISLATORS THAT YOU'RE SORRY.
And take the time to read Stefan's February 3rd post "Tim Eyman - 1, Sam Reed - 0" and the comments within it.
On this issue, the Secretary of State is in a hole -- stop digging.
Sam's a good ole Guvment Hack. He knows who butters his bread in this state.
He should just switch parties, he would be right at home with the brain dead.
3. Right on GS! Sam should join the correct party.
Regardless of the Political Parties involved, if information was not accurate, it should be corrected.
Mr. Reed and his staff should correct it immediately. The people of this state rely on competent people to provide accurate information to our elected officials so they can make decisions that are good for the public as a whole.
Do your job Mr Reed. Correct the mistakes and make it right.
We are going to support Sam Reed Regardless Right?
After all he is a Republican so he has our support regardless.
He can thumb his thumb at us with no consequences.
Just like with that anti-Semite Maleng, they don't take conservatives seriously for a very good reason.
We aren't to be taken serious. Regardless of how much we might complain about their actions, they have us in their pocket and can firmly rely on our support at the only time it really matters for them.
Steve Excell knows the Democrat party playbook bery, bery well, thank you.
He posts a comment he knows is wrong in order to invalidate the discussion up to then. Then he disappears, especially after being hammered when discovered.
Thanks, it just reinforces my opinion that Sam Reed is no Republican.
Sam Reed is not a Republican, he is a fiasco. Less not forget the Rossi race and his testimony. Shame, sham Sam.
Vote the bum out.