2009 Washington Referendum 71

Last updated

The 2009 Washington Referendum 71 (R-71) legalized domestic partnership in Washington state, the first statewide referendum in the United States that extended to LGBT people the rights and responsibility of domestic partnership. [1] The bill had passed State Legislature, and it was signed into law by the Governor in May 2009, but opponents gathered enough signatures to put the measure before the voters, who returned ballots by mail over three weeks ending on November 3, 2009, approving the measure 53% to 47%. The new law went into effect 30 days later, on December 3, 2009. [2]

Contents

Prior to this Washington state vote, a ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions, Arizona Proposition 107, was rejected by voters in that state in 2006, who two years later passed the civil-unions-neutral Arizona Proposition 102.

History

Senate Bill 5688 was signed by Governor Christine Gregoire on May 18, 2009. [3] On July 25, 2009, the organization Protect Marriage Washington submitted petitions containing 137,881 signatures to the Washington Secretary of State's office. State law requires at least 120,577 valid signatures to qualify for the October–November 2009 ballot. The Secretary of State officially verified 122,007 of the signatures on September 1, 2009. [4]

Under the State Constitution, laws passed by the legislature do not take effect until ninety days after the close of the legislative session, unless the Legislature declares an emergency, which would put the law in effect immediately. During this ninety-day period citizens can attempt to force a referendum by gathering enough verified signatures, at least four percent of the number of voters in the previous gubernatorial election. A successful petition places the law on hold, pending a referendum in the next election. [5]

Enactment of the Washington Legislature-approved law was initially halted pending signature-verification; having received sufficient valid signatures to require voter re-confirmation, the state extended the hold until the results of the 2009 general election were made official. [6]

Several lawsuits were filed to block R-71 from appearing on the ballot, but none was successful in court. [7]

A second challenge to the ballot certification brought in Thurston County by Arthur West was dismissed upon the Secretary of State's misrepresentation of the scope of the federal injunction. A third challenge brought by WFST was dismissed by agreement without review of the signature sheets. There was an active lawsuit to be heard by the Supreme Court to decide if and when signatories to ballot measures are to be revealed publicly. Following the dissolution of the injunction on November 17, 2011, the Secretary of State first released some copies of the R-71 signatures, but then halted such releases pending a motion for a further injunction to be heard on November 24, 2011 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Provisions of the law

The full title of the proposal approved in the referendum was Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688. It was intended to make domestic partnership in Washington state equivalent to marriage, without being called by that name. For this reason it is sometimes referred to as the "everything but marriage bill". The law made many changes to the Revised Code. Its overall purpose is stated in Section 1:

It is the intent of the legislature that for all purposes under state law, state registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses ...The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to achieve equal treatment, to the extent not in conflict with federal law, of state registered domestic partners and married spouses.

Text of referendum

Legislation challenged by petition is put on the ballot with wording that asks voters to choose Approved or Rejected to either enact or strike down the law.

Ballot Title

Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 [8] concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.

Should this bill be:

Approved ___
Rejected ___

Ballot Measure Summary

Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families. [9]

Background

The proposal to overturn the bill was filed by Larry Stickney, president of the Washington Values Alliance, a group that opposes recognition of same-sex relationships. [10] Organizations favoring the original legislation and opposing putting the issue up for referendum, such as Equal Rights Washington and Washington Families Standing Together, led the 'Decline to Sign' campaign, urging voters not to sign the petitions to put the referendum on the November 2009 ballot.

Reaction to petition

Ed Murray, who sponsored the initial domestic partnership legislation in 2007 (Senate Bill 5336), stated:

While it's regrettable that a referendum is being filed to undo the progress we made this session to treat gay and lesbian families the same as married families, I don't believe that voters will decide in November to take away rights from anyone… [11]

Governor Gregoire stated:

I respect the peoples' right to place a referendum on the ballot following legislative action. However, I am obviously very disappointed that this message will be debated once again. I signed the original bill and believe it should be and will be the law of our great state. Washington state has a history of fighting to ensure everyone – mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters – enjoys equal rights. [12]

Protect Marriage Washington argued, however, that the "consent of the governed" as per the Declaration of Independence has been withheld from same sex marriage in every state where the issue has been put to a vote of the people[ citation needed ]. It has been noted that Referendum 71 is about Domestic Partnerships and does not grant marriage equality to same sex couples. [13]

Polls

A 2007 University of Washington poll found 73% of Washington voters support some legal recognition of same-sex relationships (civil union/domestic partnership or marriage). [14] The same group in October 2009 conducted a poll (N = 754 registered voters) and found that 56% of respondents planned to vote 'approve', and 39% planned to vote 'reject.' [14]

A 2009 Elway Poll commissioned by the Faith and Freedom Network, an organization opposed to gay marriage, asked "Should homosexuals be allowed to legally marry?" The Elway Poll [15] (N = 405 registered voters) reported 43% saying yes and 50% saying no.

A September 2009 poll (N = 569 likely voters) commissioned by the Approve 71 campaign and conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) found that, when presented with the actual Referendum's language, 51% of likely voters chose to approve and 44% to reject the legislation. [16] A later GQR poll (N = 500 likely voters) released on October 26, 2009 found that the 53% approved the legislation, while 36% rejected it. [17]

An October 2009 poll by Survey USA, funded by KING-TV in Seattle showed that 50% of the 561 likely voters polled would vote for the measure while 43% would reject it, 7% unsure.

Election results

Referendum 71 results by county, with number of votes shown by size, Approved in green and Rejected in orange. Washington Referendum 71 results by county pie chart.png
Referendum 71 results by county, with number of votes shown by size, Approved in green and Rejected in orange.
Referendum Measure 71 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [18]
ChoiceVotes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes951,82253.15
No838,84246.85
Total votes1,790,664100.00

Endorsers of Referendum 71

Endorsing a vote of "approve"

Newspapers:

Endorsing a vote of "reject"

Signature release controversy

The Washington State Constitution establishes the required number of signatures for ballot measures. Referendum sponsors must submit a number of signatures at least equal to 4% of the votes cast for the office of governor in the most recent gubernatorial election in the state. [35] The state contends that the papers on which these submitted signatures are collected are typically a matter of public record, claims that signing a petition for a referendum or initiative that qualifies for a ballot is a legislative act, and thus argues that voters are entitled to know who is behind such measures. [36]

Some individuals and a group called WhoSigned.org requested these signatures for the Referendum 71 ballot application. Protect Marriage Washington filed to block the release of these signatures, arguing that, "due to the highly charged nature of the topic of Referendum 71, (domestic partnerships, gay rights, the traditional definition of marriage, etc.) that the personal information on the petitions for Referendum 71 warrant particular protection." [37] The issue escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court where on October 19, 2009 Justice Kennedy issued a temporary block to the release of the names [38] and then the following day the Court voted 8-1 (with John Paul Stevens being the lone dissenter) to withhold the signatures until the issue could receive a full hearing. [39]

The Supreme Court heard full arguments in the case, Doe v. Reed, on April 28, 2010. [40] The Supreme Court decision would likely set a precedent for public disclosure rules for all referendum and initiative petitions within all states which use those citizen procedures. [41]

On June 24, 2010, the US Supreme Court rejected Protect Marriage Washington's claims in an 8–1 decision, with only Thomas dissenting. [42] The court upheld the constitutionality of the Public Records Act under which the petition was requested. The question of whether to block release of the petition on narrower grounds was decided before the district court. Washington State's Office on Monday began making public the names of 137,500 people who signed Referendum 71 petitions two years ago to bring a domestic-partnership law to a public vote. [43]

Satirist Stephen Colbert made light of one advertisement created by Protect Marriage Washington on The Colbert Report's October 26, 2009, show. [44] The ad asserts that in May 2004, gay marriage was legalized in Scandinavia and coincided with a suicide rate doubling and an illegal drug use increasing nineteen-fold. [44] Colbert went on to say the ad was "terrifying," adding, "and that ad is no less terrifying just because there is no country called Scandinavia, none of the countries in Scandinavia passed gay marriage laws in 2004, and the statistics on suicide and drug use are made up." [44]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Andersen v. King County</i> Washington Supreme Court case

Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963, formerly Andersen v. Sims, is a Washington Supreme Court case in which eight lesbian and gay couples sued King County and the state of Washington for denying them marriage licenses under the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The court ruled that banning same-sex marriage is constitutional since the legislature could reasonably believe it furthers the government's interest in promoting procreation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in the District of Columbia since March 3, 2010. On December 18, 2009, Mayor Adrian Fenty signed a bill passed by the D.C. Council on December 15 legalizing same-sex marriage. Following the signing, the measure entered a mandatory congressional review of 30 work days. Marriage licenses became available on March 3, and marriages began on March 9, 2010. The District of Columbia became the first jurisdiction in the United States below the Mason–Dixon line to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Oregon since May 19, 2014, when Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Oregon ruled in Geiger v. Kitzhaber that Oregon's 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A campaign that was then under way to win voter approval of a constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage was suspended following the decision. In July 2015, Governor Kate Brown signed legislation codifying same-sex marriage in various Oregon statutes. The law change went into effect on January 1, 2016.

In April and May 2007, following a previous attempt in 2005, the Oregon state legislature passed legislation to make virtually all of the rights afforded by the state to married couples available to same-sex couples. The status is referred to in Oregon law as a domestic partnership, avoiding the use of the terms marriage or civil union. Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the bill on May 9, 2007. While January 1, 2008 was the date the statute would have taken effect, a court challenge had delayed its implementation. It was resolved on February 1, 2008, and the law went into effect that day, with registrations beginning on February 4, 2008.

In the United States, domestic partnership is a city-, county-, state-, or employer-recognized status that may be available to same-sex couples and, sometimes, opposite-sex couples. Although similar to marriage, a domestic partnership does not confer any of the myriad rights and responsibilities of marriage afforded to married couples by the federal government. Domestic partnerships in the United States are determined by each state or local jurisdiction, so there is no nationwide consistency on the rights, responsibilities, and benefits accorded domestic partners.

Same-sex marriage will soon be legal in Estonia. The government elected in the March 2023 election, consisting of the Reform Party, the Social Democrats and Estonia 200, vowed to legalize same-sex marriage. Legislation was introduced to the Riigikogu in May 2023, and was approved in a final reading by 55 votes to 34 on 20 June. It was signed into law by President Alar Karis on 27 June, and will take effect on 1 January 2024.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Washington since December 6, 2012. On February 13, 2012, Governor Christine Gregoire signed legislation that established full marriage rights for same-sex couples in the state of Washington. Opponents mounted a challenge that required voters to approve the statute at a referendum, which they did on November 6. The law took effect on December 6, and the first marriages were celebrated on December 9. Within a couple of days, more than 600 marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples in King County alone.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Wisconsin since October 6, 2014, upon the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of an appellate court ruling in Wolf v. Walker that had found Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The appellate court issued its order prohibiting enforcement of the state's ban on same-sex marriage the next day and Wisconsin counties began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately. Wisconsin had previously recognized domestic partnerships, which afforded limited legal rights to same-sex couples, from August 2009 until they were discontinued in April 2018.

State Registered Domestic Partnerships (SRDP) in Washington were created in 2007 following the Andersen v. King County decision. Subsequent legislation has made an SRDP the equivalent of marriage under state law. As a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the state, from June 30, 2014, SRDP will be available only when at least one of the partners is sixty-two years of age or older.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Maine since December 29, 2012. A bill for the legalization of same-sex marriages was approved by voters, 53–47 percent, on November 6, 2012, as Maine, Maryland and Washington became the first U.S. states to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote. Election results were certified by the Maine Secretary of State's office and the Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, on November 29.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Washington Families Standing Together</span> Pro-domestic partnership group in Washington state

Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST) was founded in 2009 to preserve domestic partnerships in Washington State by urging voters to approve Referendum 71.

Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case which holds that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Washington (state)</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the U.S. state of Washington have evolved significantly since the late 20th century. Same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1976. LGBT people are fully protected from discrimination in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations; the state enacting comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation regarding sexual orientation and gender identity in 2006. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2012, and same-sex couples are allowed to adopt. Conversion therapy on minors has also been illegal since 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 Maine Question 1</span> Referendum on same-sex marriage

Maine Question 1 was a voter referendum conducted in Maine in the United States in 2009 that rejected a law legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. The measure passed 53–47% on November 3, 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Washington United for Marriage</span> Pro-same-sex marriage coalition in Washington state

Washington United for Marriage was a coalition of secular and religious organizations in Washington State involved in lobbying the State Legislature to provide marriage for same-sex couples. The organization was founded in 2011, and formed to secure passage of a bill in the Washington legislature calling for same-sex marriage, and to then defend such a measure should a statewide referendum be launched to challenge it. Members of the coalition include Equal Rights Washington, the Human Rights Campaign, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Within 24 hours of having been publicly launched, the coalition had secured an endorsement for same-sex marriage in Washington from the editorial board of the Seattle Times.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 Maine Question 1</span> Referendum on same-sex marriage

Maine Question 1 was a voter referendum on an initiated state statute that occurred on November 6, 2012. The referendum was held to determine whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. The referendum passed with a 53-47% vote legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 Washington Referendum 74</span>

Referendum 74 was a Washington state referendum to approve or reject the February 2012 bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. On June 12, 2012, state officials announced that enough signatures in favor of the referendum had been submitted and scheduled the referendum to appear on the ballot in the November 6 general election. The law was upheld by voters in the November 6, 2012 election by a final margin of 7.4% and the result was certified on December 5.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 Maryland Question 6</span> Maryland same-sex marriage referendum

Question 6 is a referendum that appeared on the general election ballot for the U.S. state of Maryland to allow voters to approve or reject the Civil Marriage Protection Act—a bill legalizing same-sex marriage passed by the General Assembly in 2012. The referendum was approved by 52.4% of voters on November 6, 2012 and thereafter went into effect on January 1, 2013.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Tennessee since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Governor Bill Haslam quickly announced that the state would abide by the court's decision, and same-sex couples began to marry in Tennessee. Previously, Tennessee had banned same-sex marriage both by statute and its State Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ La Corte, Rachel. "Voters approve 'everything but marriage' bill". Associated Press. Retrieved March 19, 2010.
  2. ↑ Ammons, David. "R-71: Effective 12-3-09". From Our Corner. Retrieved March 19, 2010.
  3. ↑ "The new law equates same sex civil unions with traditional marriage in every way except the title of marriage". Archived from the original on July 2, 2009. Retrieved May 18, 2009.
  4. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 23, 2009. Retrieved September 26, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  5. ↑ Washington Constitution, Article II, Section 1
  6. ↑ Grygiel, Chris (July 25, 2009). "Gay partnership foes turn in referendum signatures". Seattle Post-Intelligencer .
  7. ↑ On September 2, 2009 King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector [rejected http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/178051.asp] a challenge to block a vote on the referendum. Noting that she had concerns about the validity of some of the signatures, the basis of her rejection was that it should have been filed in Thurston County. (Olympia, in Thurston County, is the state capital; the state's largest city, Seattle, is in King County).
  8. ↑ "Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688" (PDF). May 4, 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 1, 2010. Retrieved March 8, 2021.
  9. ↑ "Proposed Referendum Measures". Washington Secretary of State. Retrieved June 14, 2023.
  10. ↑ "Tag search results for 'washington-values-alliance' page 1 - The Spokesman-Review". www.spokesman.com.
  11. ↑ "Challenge to domestic partnership expansion filed".
  12. ↑ "News & Media | Governor Jay Inslee". www.governor.wa.gov.
  13. ↑ Referendum 71: Pro
  14. 1 2 "Poll Results". January 7, 2019.
  15. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 23, 2009. Retrieved April 10, 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  16. ↑ "Approve 71 campaign poll shows a tough fight ahead. Victory hinges on voter turnout". Archived from the original on October 8, 2011. Retrieved March 8, 2021.
  17. ↑ Mirabella, Joe (October 26, 2009). "BREAKING: New poll results shows lead for approve 71 campaign". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
  18. 1 2 "Referendum Measure 71 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners - County Results", November 03, 2009 General Election Results, Washington Secretary of State, November 3, 2009
  19. 1 2 "Washington Families Standing Together to Approve Referendum 71" . Retrieved September 23, 2009.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wagoner, Richard (September 14, 2009). "Large employers back retaining domestic partnership benefits". The Seattle Times. Retrieved September 27, 2009.
  21. ↑ "Approve".
  22. ↑ Washington State Democratic Party. "Washington State Democratic Party". Wa-democrats.org. Retrieved January 15, 2019.
  23. ↑ "MRW Blog". Archived from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved October 26, 2009.
  24. ↑ "Organizations Endorsing Washington Families Standing Together" . Retrieved October 26, 2009.
  25. ↑ Jake Thomas (August 12, 2018). "Opinion issued on the Zimmerly quarry". The Columbian. Retrieved January 15, 2019.
  26. ↑ "Opinion". HeraldNet.com. March 4, 2008. Retrieved January 15, 2019.
  27. ↑ "ENDORSEMENT: Approve R-71 to fulfill promise of civil unions | Opinion - The News Tribune". Archived from the original on February 4, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2021.
  28. ↑ "Support Equality, Support Referendum 71". The Olympian. October 4, 2009. Archived from the original on February 4, 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2021.
  29. ↑ "Referendum 71 would hasten progress toward equality". The Oregonian. October 14, 2009.
  30. ↑ "Approve Referendum 71 in the name of fundamental fairness for all Washington families". The Seattle Times. October 2, 2009.
  31. ↑ "Skagit County's News and Information Source | goskagit.com". Archived from the original on October 28, 2009. Retrieved October 28, 2009.
  32. ↑ "Editorial: Support referendum to protect rights for all | The Spokesman-Review". Spokesman.com. October 9, 2009. Retrieved January 15, 2019.
  33. ↑ Jardine, Josh (October 15, 2009). "2009 Endorsements - News". The Stranger. Retrieved January 15, 2019.
  34. ↑ "Washington Referendum 71". Newspaper Archive. October 19, 2009. Retrieved March 8, 2021.
  35. ↑ "Washington State Secretary of State R-71 Frequently Asked Questions". Archived from the original on October 16, 2009. Retrieved November 1, 2009.
  36. ↑ "U.S. Supreme Court shields Referendum 71 signatures". HeraldNet.com. October 20, 2009.
  37. ↑ "Release of Initiative and Referendum Petitions" (PDF) (Press release). Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State, Washington. October 15, 2009. Retrieved October 20, 2009.
  38. ↑ "Justice Kennedy blocks release of R-71 names", Seattle Times, October 19, 2009, retrieved October 20, 2009
  39. ↑ Referendum 71 in Washington State: Supreme Court Blocks Revelation of Signatories, October 20, 2009, archived from the original on November 4, 2009, retrieved October 27, 2009
  40. ↑ Tu, Janet (April 28, 2010). "Supreme Court skeptical on keeping Ref. 71 petition names secret: Democracy takes 'civic courage'". Seattle Times .
  41. ↑ Tu, Janet (April 20, 2010). "Final preparations underway in R-71 Supreme Court case". Seattle Times .
  42. ↑ "09-559 Doe v. Reed (06/24/10)" (PDF). Retrieved January 15, 2019.
  43. ↑ Turnbull, Lornet (October 19, 2011). "U.S. District Court ruling on Ref. 71 signatures". Seattle Times .
  44. 1 2 3 "The Word: Don't Ask Don't Tell – The Colbert Report". October 26, 2009.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.