R-71 is approved!

R-71 is real and active!

Washington state voters have approved Referendum 71, keeping a law that expands state benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners.

The tally Thursday afternoon saw the vote to approve R-71 widening its lead 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.

That lead now appears insurmountable. The Secretary of State's Office estimates another 500,000 to 600,000 ballots statewide are still outstanding, with about half expected from King County, where the measure is being approved by slightly more than 2 to 1.

"Voters across the state listened to the personal stories of lesbian and gay families and the challenges they faced and sent a strong message that we want to see all families treated equally under the law in our state," said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, which worked for the measure's approval.

Yes!!

What's going on in the state of Washington and R-71?

Great Hera! This R-71 is getting ridic for real.

First, they deny, for the second time, the removal of R-71 from the ballot even after they found many issues with it.

Then to continue the foolishness, U.S. District Judge Ben Settle said the petitions should not be released because it would violate the First Amendment rights of signers. This is silly to be honest and Attorney General Rob McKenna thinks so too.

He is filing an appeal to lift an injunction that blocks the release of the names.

Plus, we need to know if this petition has any merit. There has been many reports that folks were tricked into signing it or the signatures are from non-registered voters.

If the people have the right to vote, they should also have the right to know the truth.

The Legal challenge to R- 71 was rejected, but...

So the challenge to block R-71 from the ballot was rejected, however it still may have a shot.

King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector said that Washington Families Standing Together had selected the wrong venue to litigate in and it's too early for the battle. But here is the interesting parts...

However, the Court's ruling also recognized the legitimacy of Washington Families Standing Together's charges against Secretary of State Sam Reed. The allegations in the lawsuit are now findings of fact. Remember, WFST's suit rests on the improper acceptance, by the Secretary of State, of two types of signatures on Referendum 71 petitions:

• Signatures of voters who were not registered to vote at the time that they signed a Referendum 71 petition
• Signatures on petitions whose circulator did not identify him or herself, and/or did not sign the declaration required by state law

The Court basically agreed with WFST on both of these points. First:

The Secretary of State concedes that he instructed his staff to accept signatures of voters who were not registered when they signed the petition. The court notes the plain language of the Washington State Constitution and the Revised Code of Washington requires voters to be registered before signing. While it may be common practice for individuals to register simultaneously with signing referendum petitions, and it may even be good policy, that does not mean that the practice is in accordance with Washington law. No Washington court has ever considered this issue, but state supreme courts in other jurisdictions have decided resoundingly against the Secretary of State's position.

And second:

Protect Marriage Washington/Intervenor also admits that their members stamped the declarations on thousands of petitions with Mr. Stickney's signature before filing the referendum petitions with the Secretary of State. Likewise, the Secretary of State concedes he has accepted more than 35,000 signatures where the signature-gatherer's declaration was either left blank or stamped en masse with Mr. Stickney's signature. In making this determination, the Secretary of State has relied on an opinion by the Attorney General issued in 2006. That opinion states that RCW 29A.72.130 requires not that the signature-gatherer actually sign the declaration, but only that the declaration be printed on the back of each petition... Based on the statute's plain language and the legislative history, this essentially renders the declaration requirement meaningless.

Go here for more, but it seems there's still hope? We will see.