Sound Politics: Democracy Held Hostage: Day 35

August 13, 2007

Democracy Held Hostage: Day 35

Last Thursday I sent an e-mail to Elections spokeswoman Bobbie Egan asking for a progress update on I-24 signature verification -- specifically, how many valid, rejected and duplicates have been counted and as of what date? I also inquired about the policy they're using on duplicate signatures -- whether they're following state law and allowing exactly one signature for every multiple signer, or tossing out all signatures from a multiple signer as in King County Code 1.16.100 (which appears to be unconstitutional per state Supreme Court ruling Sudduth v. Chapman). Finally, I asked when they expect to start verifying I-25 signatures.

I would expect the Elections office to have ready answers to these questions. But so far, no response. I just forwarded the questions to Sherril Huff.

I'll post any response if and when I receive one.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 13, 2007 10:04 AM | Email This

Comments

1. King County Code 1.16.100 would not be unconstitutional. The state supreme court decision in Sudduth v. Chapman was based on the state constitutional provision (Article II, Section 1) which provides for initiatives and referenda to be proposed by a certain amount of voter signatures. Disqualifying even the original signature of multiple signers was found to be bizarre (something no other state did in these cases) and contrary to the constitution -- which certainly did not disqualify the first signature of multiple signers.

King County initiative power is not derived from Article II, Section 1 of the state constitution, so therefore the county code provision in question could not possibly violate this same section of the state constitution.

King County initiative power is derived from Section 230.50 of the King County Charter. However, Section 230.50 simply requires a certain quantity of voter signatures, and also contains nothing to suggest that the first signature of multiple signers should also be disqualified.

So the same result should obtain as Sudduth v. Chapman (interpreting Section 230.50 in the same manner as Article II, Section 1), and the first signature of multiple signers should be counted, and additional signatures from the same person (of course) not counted.

If King County Elections comes up with a different interpretation, you need to blame this on their legal advisor (Republican King County Prosecuting Attorney) DAN SATTERBERG. Just like some of the decisions (that you disagreed with) in the disputed 2004 general election were done because of the advice NORM MALENG's office gave to King County Elections ...

Posted by: Richard Pope on August 13, 2007 10:33 AM

2. Stefan and Richard- Since King County Code 1.16.100 says "If the records and elections division finds the same name signed to more than one petition it shall reject the name as often as it appears", how can you blame KC Elections for doing this? Isn't their job to follow KC code, not the charter?

I agree the code should be changed, and perhaps a court should do this if the county council won't. But until it's changed, doesn't KC Elections need to follow it?

Posted by: Bruce on August 13, 2007 11:34 AM

3. Bruce: How about not striking the original signature until they can "prove" signator intent, through an affidavit? Seems like that's how KC likes to work these things, except when it's not to their advantage.

Posted by: katomar on August 13, 2007 12:03 PM

4. Katomar, are you asking what the law is or what it should be? The law says nothing about intent, just that all signatures of a duplicate signer must be discarded. As for what it should be, arguably if a person signs multiple times, the first should count, and intent should matter only in that fraudulent intent should be grounds for prosecution. I imagine the vast majority of duplicates are accidental, but there should be a provision dealing with fraudulent intent to cover blatant cheating.

Posted by: Bruce on August 13, 2007 12:17 PM

5. Seems like the code has a global "catch-all" -

1.02.080 Code to be liberally construed. The King County Code must be liberally construed
and may not be limited by a rule of strict construction. (Ord. 13880 § 9, 2000).

This portion of KCC would allow them to accept one of the signatures.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 13, 2007 12:20 PM

6. Bruce: Next time I'll use code, something like {sarc} to show when I'm being sarcastic. Of course, you are right, but historically what the law is and what it should be is up to interpretation with KC, depending on desired outcome.

Posted by: katomar on August 13, 2007 12:33 PM

7. SouthernRoots, I'm not a lawyer, but I think "strict construction" deals with how strictly you interpret the code in cases of ambiguity. In this case there's no ambiguity to interpret; the code clearly says what to do, so it must be followed unless it disagrees with some higher law. Presumably it's up to the courts, not the KC elections dept, to decide which parts of the code should be followed. I'm sure Richard can set me straight if I've got anything wrong here...

Posted by: Bruce on August 13, 2007 12:40 PM

8. Sounds like the public needs a new law called Habeas
Initium and a good lawyer to push it.

Posted by: me on August 13, 2007 01:00 PM

9. Bruce --

The "construed liberally" provision will not affect the interpretation of King County Code 1.16.100 -- since that section is unambiguous. The language of that section clearly requires rejection of all multiple signatures, including the first signature.

And Republican King County Prosecuting Attorney will probably advise King County Elections to follow the literal language of KCC 1.16.100, even though similar language in the RCW was struck down over 30 years ago as being unwarranted in the context of the state initiative process.

So it will probably be a matter for the courts. And with the number of signatures presented for I-25, in the context of the rejection rate already shown for I-24, the counting of the first of multiple signatures could very well make the difference as to whether I-25 qualifies for the ballot.

Posted by: Richard Pope on August 13, 2007 01:01 PM

10. Hey don't we already have a good lawyer by the name of Richard on board that could take the case Pro Bono Publico?

Posted by: me on August 13, 2007 01:15 PM

11. So how many signatures did Initiative 23 receive?

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005078.html

It only would have needed 46,000 signatures to get on the ballot for 2006 (and 2007 if necessary), and you could have had an elected auditor in place in time for the 2008 election in any event.

Posted by: Richard Pope on August 13, 2007 04:15 PM

12. TEST QUESTION: If this is the rate they take to verify signatures; just how long will the 2008 November election take to verify? 1 year, two may be more.......

Posted by: Count count on August 13, 2007 07:34 PM

13.
Not to beat a dead horse, but anyone with gumption has plans to leave Seattle and especially Washington state. This place has turned into the backwater it always was, but now missing the patina of "high tech".

Bargains for houses keep piling up in small towns and communities all over America. The best thing in this case is to leave the sinking ship behind. The "ins" will keep soiling their own nests and everyone else's.

Posted by: John Bailo on August 13, 2007 10:01 PM

14. I'll be leaving when the time is right. The Progressives here will tax this state right into prosperity. Or at least that's how they see it.

In the meantime, don't expect an answer from Egan or Huff anytime soon. They will stonewall as long as they can. How dare anyone question the entrenched power structure.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 13, 2007 10:09 PM

15. John Bailo, you are welcome to express your contempt for Seattle's leaders, citizens, prospects, whatever. But when you call Seattle a "sinking ship" while contrasting it with small towns where "bargains keep piling up", you display ironic ignorance of the marketplace, and its signals, that conservatives profess to worship.

Posted by: Bruce on August 14, 2007 02:22 AM

16. Speaking of ingnorance Bruce why don't you take a stroll down Third and Pike between 10:00 PM and 3 AM. Make sure to wear your "I'm a liberal and I won't fight back" sign, it saves time for the "at risk youth" when they are picking out their victims for assualt and robbery. Let's see the same Democrat political
machine has been in charge for over 24 years and we have a crime issue in our most popular downtown entertainment areas, Streets and bridges in disrepair, Schools in the dumper. But on the up side our property values and taxes are so high no service workers or working middle class folks can afford to live here. The good ship "Limo Liberal Utopia" is not sinking, it's floating on the sea of taxpayers dollars.

Posted by: Huh? on August 14, 2007 06:30 AM

17. Bruce, John Bailo get you, too? He is no conservative; he is a closet liberal.

What I find amazing, Stefan and Toby, is that you are representatives of the initiative, and, as public servants, they refuse to assist their clients- the ones who turned in the initiative.

This is way below what the County stresses in customer service. If I treated all my customers like they are treating you, there soon wouldn't be customers. Can you just imagine the uproar if the building department didn't give you status reports on your building permit?

Posted by: swatter on August 14, 2007 06:41 AM

18.
#15: Ok, I'm listening. All I read about is worsening conditions in the Sound: crime, decay, corruption, high prices. And yet I see other smaller cities being praised as "best places" and their houses are sometimes as low as 1/4th the price of Seattle.

To me, as a conservative, "market conditions" say MOVE!

#17: Funny that you should think of "closet liberal" as the worst insult to be hurled. But no, I am no such thing. I am in fact, a "closet heterosexual". I must hide my desire to look at pictures of Erin McNaught.

Posted by: John Bailo on August 14, 2007 08:18 AM

19. So, when are you moving? You have promised us that for several months. Enough already!!

Posted by: swatter on August 14, 2007 08:33 AM

20.
Talk about nice stats!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington%2C_Kentucky

Lexington, KY:

"The median age was 33 years. For every 100 females there were 96.5 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 94.3 males.

The median income for a household in the city was $39,813, and the median income for a family was $58,677. Males had a median income of $36,166 versus $26,964 for females. The per capita income for the city was $23,109. 12.9% of the population and 8.2% of families were below the poverty line, including 14.3% of those under age 18 and 8.6% of those 65 and older."

Posted by: John Bailo on August 14, 2007 09:11 AM

21. Swatter (17): "What I find amazing, Stefan and Toby, is that you are representatives of the initiative"

I am NOT a representative of the initiative, just a vocal supporter.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 14, 2007 09:34 AM

22. Well, that makes a little difference. If Toby or another of the sponsors were to call, would they get an answer? I would expect that sponsors would have more griping rights, though your reuest is more than legitimate.

Posted by: swatter on August 14, 2007 10:20 AM