Steve Hobbs & Sam Reed testifying together against new anti-initiative bill (Tues, Jan 20, 1:30pm). Check out Sam Reed’s email to committee members.

From: Sam Reed, Secretary of State (2001 – 2013), Thurston County Auditor (1978 – 2001)

Dear committee members:

Since 1912, the citizens of the state of Washington have cared deeply about their initiative and referendum rights under our Constitution. I urge you not to suppress voter involvement in this honored tradition.  In my twelve years as Secretary of State, I learned that the voters of this state view the initiative process as almost sacred.     

Last year, you introduced a bill that required the Secretary of State to reject a valid voter signature on a citizen petition if the person signing didn’t include their address or the circulator didn’t fill out the back. So even if the voter’s signature matched the one on file, the Secretary of State would be required to suppress that voter’s voice. As you may recall, Secretary Hobbs and I spoke out forcefully against it during the hearing. I’m pleased it did not pass last session and hope this year’s version of it (HB 2260) does not either.

I have even more serious concerns regarding a new bill that’s been introduced Senate Bill 5973  and companion bill HB 2259.

The stated reason for this bill is to stop fraudulent or forged signatures from being counted. But that’s already being done. Besides substantial penalties deterring such actions, the Secretary of State is extremely diligent and reviews every petition sheet and every signature and any that are even remotely questionable are set aside and never counted. 

So all of SB 5973’s requirements will substantially burden the Secretary of State’s already overworked staff and the citizen signature gathering process without any added benefit.

Particularly concerning is Sections 3 and 4, which would require the sponsor of an initiative or referendum to collect 1000 voter signatures before being allowed to file their ballot measure. First, Secretary Hobbs’ rule raising the filing fee to $156 has dramatically lessened the number of measures being filed so the reason stated in the bill for this policy has already been alleviated. Second, it is true that Oregon requires this 1000 signature pre-filing requirement but Oregon has a 2 year window for signature collection but Washington’s deadlines are much, much shorter. With only 90 days to collect signatures for a referendum, for example, this proposed 1000 signature requirement would result in the clock running out for any referendum. 

Even more fundamental — what form would be used to collect these 1000 signatures? The bill says the Code Revisor cannot review it and the Attorney General cannot give it a ballot title until the 1000 signatures are collected. So what will these 1000 voters be signing? A sheet of paper that hasn’t been legally reviewed and doesn’t have an objectively written ballot title? 

Under the bill, a sponsor would need to print up something (??), get 1000 voters to sign it, turn them in, have the Secretary of State verify the 1000 signatures are valid (how long will that take?), and only if that happens, only then can the sponsor file the ballot measure, have it be processed by the Secretary of State, reviewed by the Code Revisor, receive a ballot title from the Attorney General, have that ballot title be subjected to judicial review, and only after all of that would the sponsor be able to print up petitions and begin their signature drive. Even assuming a sponsor of an initiative to the people filed on the first available day, instead of 4 months to collect 400,000 signatures, there may be less than a month to do so. The clock would run out on those too.

As for Sections 1 and 2 in SB 5973, the 1993 Legislature already tried to pass a law that banned paying per signature. It was immediately challenged and in 1994 US District Judge Barbara Rothstein ruled it was unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment (LIMIT v Maleng). Plaintiffs showed that ballot measure campaigns that pay per signature had better validity rates than unpaid volunteer campaigns do. That’s still the case today. 

In order to withstand a First Amendment challenge, it must be shown that there’s a recurring problem in this state and that the proposed remedy must be “narrowly tailored” to fix the problem in the least burdensome way possible. There’s simply no way SB 5973 overcomes those two hurdles.

It’s important to remember that the initiative process is utilized by progressives, conservatives, and nonpartisan individuals. The high number of signatures required ensures that very few measures even make it to the ballot. For over 100 years, the initiative process has served our citizens well and any changes made to it must be justified. SB 5973 is not.

Thank you all for considering my sincere and heartfelt concerns about Senate Bill 5973 (and companion bill HB 2259).

Respectfully,

From: Sam Reed, Secretary of State (2001 – 2013), Thurston County Auditor (1978 – 2001)

Dear committee members:

Since 1912, the citizens of the state of Washington have cared deeply about their initiative and referendum rights under our Constitution. I urge you not to suppress voter involvement in this honored tradition.  In my twelve years as Secretary of State, I learned that the voters of this state view the initiative process as almost sacred.     

Last year, you introduced a bill that required the Secretary of State to reject a valid voter signature on a citizen petition if the person signing didn’t include their address or the circulator didn’t fill out the back. So even if the voter’s signature matched the one on file, the Secretary of State would be required to suppress that voter’s voice. As you may recall, Secretary Hobbs and I spoke out forcefully against it during the hearing. I’m pleased it did not pass last session and hope this year’s version of it (HB 2260) does not either.

I have even more serious concerns regarding a new bill that’s been introduced Senate Bill 5973 and companion bill HB 2259.

The stated reason for this bill is to stop fraudulent or forged signatures from being counted. But that’s already being done. Besides substantial penalties deterring such actions, the Secretary of State is extremely diligent and reviews every petition sheet and every signature and any that are even remotely questionable are set aside and never counted. 

So all of SB 5973’s requirements will substantially burden the Secretary of State’s already overworked staff and the citizen signature gathering process without any added benefit.

Particularly concerning is Sections 3 and 4, which would require the sponsor of an initiative or referendum to collect 1000 voter signatures before being allowed to file their ballot measure. First, Secretary Hobbs’ rule raising the filing fee to $156 has dramatically lessened the number of measures being filed so the reason stated in the bill for this policy has already been alleviated. Second, it is true that Oregon requires this 1000 signature pre-filing requirement but Oregon has a 2 year window for signature collection but Washington’s deadlines are much, much shorter. With only 90 days to collect signatures for a referendum, for example, this proposed 1000 signature requirement would result in the clock running out for any referendum. 

Even more fundamental — what form would be used to collect these 1000 signatures? The bill says the Code Revisor cannot review it and the Attorney General cannot give it a ballot title until the 1000 signatures are collected. So what will these 1000 voters be signing? A sheet of paper that hasn’t been legally reviewed and doesn’t have an objectively written ballot title? 

Under the bill, a sponsor would need to print up something (??), get 1000 voters to sign it, turn them in, have the Secretary of State verify the 1000 signatures are valid (how long will that take?), and only if that happens, only then can the sponsor file the ballot measure, have it be processed by the Secretary of State, reviewed by the Code Revisor, receive a ballot title from the Attorney General, have that ballot title be subjected to judicial review, and only after all of that would the sponsor be able to print up petitions and begin their signature drive. Even assuming a sponsor of an initiative to the people filed on the first available day, instead of 4 months to collect 400,000 signatures, there may be less than a month to do so. The clock would run out on those too.

As for Sections 1 and 2 in SB 5973, the 1993 Legislature already tried to pass a law that banned paying per signature. It was immediately challenged and in 1994 US District Judge Barbara Rothstein ruled it was unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment (LIMIT v Maleng). Plaintiffs showed that ballot measure campaigns that pay per signature had better validity rates than unpaid volunteer campaigns do. That’s still the case today. 

In order to withstand a First Amendment challenge, it must be shown that there’s a recurring problem in this state and that the proposed remedy must be “narrowly tailored” to fix the problem in the least burdensome way possible. There’s simply no way SB 5973 overcomes those two hurdles.

It’s important to remember that the initiative process is utilized by progressives, conservatives, and nonpartisan individuals. The high number of signatures required ensures that very few measures even make it to the ballot. For over 100 years, the initiative process has served our citizens well and any changes made to it must be justified. SB 5973 is not.

Thank you all for considering my sincere and heartfelt concerns about Senate Bill 5973 (and companion bill HB 2259).

Respectfully,