From Sea to Shining Sea, Equality in the Balance – and on the Ballots

Gov. Baldacci (D-ME)

Today, the Governor of Maine, John Baldacci, issued one of the most interesting, and wonderful, statements I’ve seen in the marriage debate.  In today’s statement “Placing Challenge of Marriage Law on Ballot,” he said:

“I fully support this legislation, and believe it guarantees that all Maine citizens are treated equally under our State’s civil marriage laws,” Governor Baldacci said. “But I also have a Constitutional obligation to set the date for the election once the Secretary of State has certified that enough signatures have been submitted. I am confident that Maine voters will make the right decision on this important issue when they cast their ballots in the fall.”

Let’s put this in context.  Even in California, no major elected official was willing to jump in front of the Proposition 8 bus in the early days — let alone in governor’s official statement putting the measure on the ballot.  Yet, here in Maine, we have the state’s governor strongly announcing his support for full equality in the state — following passage of the bill earlier this year by a majority of the state’s lawmakers — as he announces that it will be on the fall ballot.

In every news story, Baldacci’s support for equality will be balancing out the news that he signed the papers officially placing the measure on the ballot.

On the other northern end of the country, a King County judge in Washington state today rejected a challenge to that state’s referendum to overturn the domestic partner benefits bill approved earlier this year by its legislature.  The ruling is available here (pdf).

Judge Julie Spector found:

In summary, under Washington case law it is unclear whether there are any limits to the Secretary of State’s discretion as long as he has chosen to accept petitions rather than reject them.

Finally, under Shrempp and Community Care Coalition, supra, this court has no authority to prevent the Secretary of State from accepting these petitions in light of their questionable validity. Only after certification can opponents of a referendum challenge it in court, and then only in compliance with RCW 29A.72.240. Therefore, any challenge to the Secretary of State’s certification of a referendum must be brought in Superior Court in Thurston County within five days.

Under the provision cited by Judge Spector, Washington Families Standing Together (WFST), the pro-equality group opposing the referendum must:

apply to the superior court of Thurston county for a citation requiring the secretary of state to submit the petition to said court for examination, and for a writ of mandate compelling the certification of the measure and petition, or for an injunction to prevent the certification thereof . . . .

Although Spector announced some concerns with many of the parts of the petition-gathering process and subsequent Secretary of State actions accepting some of the petitions and signers, it appears that all that is dicta to be re-litigated assuming a case is filed in Thurston County.

Besides being able to cite to Judge Spector’s ruling — both in court and in the campaign — I’m not quite sure, if state law is this clear, why the case was filed in King County at all.  WFST’s lead lawyer, David Burman (bio), looks like quite a superstar from Perkins Coie, though, so I’d assume there is some rationale for what appears at first glance to be a failed-from-the-start challenge — at least in this venue.  I’m awaiting more information on this case from folks with WFST.

Popularity: 8% [?]