I'm a big fan of Tim Eyman. I'm also a big fan of Sam Reed. So when I read Tim's post a few days ago wanted to get Sam's side of the story. Below is our email exchange, unedited.
The public record question does not go back 95 years. It goes back to 1972 when I-172 passed by 72% creating (among other things) our wide open public records act. Since that time, initiative and referendum petitions have been public records. But, when people came in to do a public record request, they learned that they would receive copies of thousands of petitions - and decided not to do it. In more recent years, we have been scanning in the petitions and storing them on CDs for security purposes. Now, it's easier for a public record request. In recent years, we've had six of them and have provided the discs with no controversy.
As Rob [McKenna] points out, the petitions are not like a secret ballot. They sit out at super markets. People look over the other names when they sign. The signature gatherers make copies of the petitions. In other words, they are very public.
Also, Rob and I point out that constitutionally this is a legislative process. When one person signs, he/she is (in essence) sponsoring legislation. A legislator could not sponsor a bill and then have his/her name kept secret.
--Sam
P.S. Tim Eyman found one person, a former assistant Secretary of State, Don Whiting, who does not like the idea of them being public records. He worked for Ralph Munro. I asked Ralph is that was his position. He said no.......that he does not recall ever taking a position. Pam Floyd was the manager of the initiative/referendum operation when Don was the assistant Secretary of State. She said that the Attorney General's Office and her superiors (in the Elections Division) told her the petitions were public records. So, she treated them that way.
He followed up with another email stating
Also, I have no idea what Eyman is talking about with us refusing to disclose anything. We're waiting for the judge to decide whether to proceed. It's not up to us. It's up to him. .....We expected that to be the case.
And, by the way, you may have noticed that just ruled that he will not proceed until he finds out what the U. S. Supreme Court decides to do regarding the Referendum 71 petition public records case.
The attorneys Eyman is talking about work for Rob McKenna not for me.
--Sam
Sam also addressed Tim's statement about selling the lists for a profit. He stated
We are limited legally to what it costs us to produce it. We don't have any choice. We are not a profit-making organization. Since costs of technology change rapidly, we are continually having to run the numbers.
He also sent me a link to the below article, detailing Judge Hick's stay on Tim's request last Friday.
As I said, I'm a big fan of Tim's and I think he does a lot of great work. I think at times he can get a bit overzealous, easy to do when one is demonized and is fighting an uphill battle, I'm guilty of it myself at times.
As for my opinion on the matter of releasing names overall, I tend to side with Sam. While it's unfortunate that 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, we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. By not allowing names to be released the potential for fraud is increased. And it's not like Washington State's record on election fraud is spotless. Instead we should address problems of harassment with laws already on the books. After all, we don't outlaw guns because people are shot with them. We punish the people that are abusing that right to own guns.
Posted by MarkGriswold at November 24, 2009 08:05 AM | Email ThisHaving 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. on November 24, 2009 09:17 AMthis 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.
Posted by: mike on November 24, 2009 09:39 AMPrior 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 on November 24, 2009 09:50 AMYou 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 on November 24, 2009 10:07 AMand 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 on November 24, 2009 10:21 AMMike @ 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?
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 on November 24, 2009 10:55 AMWhether 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 on November 24, 2009 11:10 AMActually, 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 on November 24, 2009 11:19 AM