1. The Secretary of State did not comply with WAC 434-379-010. The sample she drew did not represent the signature population, therefore, she could not reliably project valid, non-duplicated signature counts. The Secretary of State has no valid basis to certify I-1000. By ruling in favor of the Secretary of State, the court allowed the SoS to continue ignoring the law and wrongfully certify or reject future initiatives.
2. The law allows citizens to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision. The courts’ rulings set a precedent to shut the door down without a word of explanation and citizens’ rights have been taken away.

Nobody knows how many valid, non-duplicate signatures were actually submitted to the Secretary of State in support of Initiative 1000 (I-1000). The Secretary of State for sure does not know. She only sampled 3% of the overall signatures. By law (RCW 29A.72.230) , she is allowed to sample signatures and project the likely results, which she did. In order to project likely results from the samples, she is required to follow Washington Administrative Code (WAC 434-379-010), which she did not.

By law (RCW 29A.720.240), any citizen who is dissatisfied with the Secretary’s decision on certification may file petition to Superior Court of Thurston County. ACE president, Mr. Kan Qiu, and two other co-plaintiffs filed complaint to the Thurston County Superior Court on February 11th, challenge validity of I-1000 certification.

After examining public records data, Dr. Hubber, the statistician hired by the plaintiffs’ legal team issued a report. In conclusion, Dr. Hubber states “the SoS (Secretary of State) did not carry out an ‘unrestricted random sample’ as required by the regulations (WAC 434-379-010)” and “the ‘protection against misrepresentation of the population’ [Snedecor and Cochran] afforded by an unrestricted random sample has not been achieved. Therefore, the SoS has not shown an objectively valid basis to certify the I-1000 petition.” In plain words, the Secretary of State failed to comply with WAC requirement, and her sample failed to represent the entire signature population. As a result, her projection of likely valid, non-duplicated results is invalid.

Dr. Hubber’s report shows the clear differences between a true “unrestricted random sample” vs. the Secretary of State’s sample. And by Dr. Hubber’s estimation, “the SoS procedure produces within-page pairs at less than 60% of the rate it is required to do so.” In other words, the SoS underestimated duplicated signatures by more than 60%!

AG representing the Secretary of State filed Motion of Summary Judgement on March 4th. Mr. Qiu’s legal team filed Opposition to MSJ on March 21st. AG filed their reply on March 27th. Mr. Qiu’s lawyer received AG’s reply at 13:02 on March 27th. By 15:59 on March 27th, the court sent Mr. Qiu’s lawyer Order Granting Summary Judgement which was dated on March 26th, the day before AG’s reply was filed!

Former Managing Assistant AG and current Thurston County Superior Court Judge, Chris Lanese’s decision states “The Court agrees with each argument raised by Defendant. The bases for challenging the conduct at issue here are exceptionally narrow and Plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to their applicability in this case.”

The core of the legal debate is “genuine issue of material fact”. Without “genuine issue of material fact”, a judge can grant Summary Judgement. Mr. Qiu and his co-plaintiffs demonstrated with data and analyses that the Secretary did not comply with the mandatory Washington Administrative Code, and that her error rendered the projection and certification unreliable and not in compliance with the law. How could Judge Lanese not understand or ignore this genuine issue of material fact, and sided with the Secretary of State?

The I-1000 backers had planed to have a public hearing in early April. A hastily decision by lawless judge Lanese helped clear the way – well, not so fast. Mr. Qiu and his co-plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs filed appeal on March 29th, and their lawyer filed appeal brief on April 9th. AG representing the Secretary of State filed reply on April 11th. And the plaintiffs’ lawyer replied on April 12th. On the afternoon of April 17th, few hours before I-1000 backers planned public hearing on I-1000, the Supreme Court ruled “Pursuant to RCW 29A.72.240, the Court dismisses the proceedings” without a word of explanation!

What the Supreme Court Judges can’t explain to you can be found in I-1000 sponsor’s amicus brief. In his amicus brief, Nat Jackson states: “the legislative hearing currently set for 8:00 a.m. on April 18 if this Initiative’s certification is resolved”. The Supreme court did what Nat Jackson asked – dismissed the case on April 17th so that the April 18th public hearing can go on as planned. People should be outraged!

More than 2,000 people have signed the petition that demands Judge Lanese to resign. People have also filed complaints against Judge Lanese to the State of Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct. We will file complaints against all Supreme Court Judges to the State of Washington Commissions on Judicial Conduct!

The post Judges Ruled Based on Politics NOT on Laws in I-1000 Case appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

“This is clearly a political move and we have filed an appeal to the State Supreme Court.” Said Mr. Kan Qiu, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging I-1000’s validity. “The court sent us the Order Granting Summary Judgement less than 3 hours after the SoS filed the reply to our opposition; and Judge Lanese signed the Order the day before the SoS even replied!  It appears that all of this has been hastily decided and maybe predetermined.”

More than 700 people have donated in support of the lawsuit, and many are furious with what seems to be a rapid attempt to legitimize an initiative infested with violations of laws that govern the initiative process. The SoS did not carry out an “unrestricted random sample” as required by WAC 434-379-010(1). She also engaged in arbitrary and capricious decision making about how to proceed when problems were found in the signature population during sample review. The process used was convoluted by any objective observation.

“RCW 29A.72.230 grants any citizen dissatisfied with the SoS’s determination the right to challenge it in the Superior Court. The SoS did not validate every I-1000 signature. They certified apples based on orange samples. To say that Judge Lanese’s decision has caused long-term damage to the initiative process is not an overstatement. “Mr. Qiu said. “Judge Lanese just removed standards from the code, and set a precedent to deny a citizen’s right to challenge the SoS’s certification decision. People should be outraged.”

People have also filed complaints to the State of Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct.

####

The post PRESS RELEASE – STUNNED ANGER AS JUDGE SIDES WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

“Open letter to all I-1000 petition circulators:

To those of you who were worked in Washington State on the I-1000 initiative, in freezing temperatures during the holidays and still have not been paid…

We are collecting information from everyone interested in seeking the payment owed to them.  I will be posting a template worksheet for you to fill out and send back to us. We are very interested in hearing from anyone involved, and finding out what they believe they are owed

While I understand and respect that Roy Ruffino has been in the business for a long time, and that he has run previous campaigns successfully, on this project, the way he and his partner/client , Jesse Wineberry, and the leaders involved have handled their initiative is truly unacceptable, and took severe advantage of professional petition circulators and how they do their jobs.

We were never told that we were working on spec.  (Working on “spec” means speculation, in essence, we collect the signatures and hope that whoever asked us to get them, can use them to get paid BECAUSE they already have them in hand.). Working on spec does happen sometimes, However the one ESSENTIAL aspect to taking spec work, is that EVERYONE INVOLVED KNOWS THE RISK!  They can assess for themselves the risks involved, and make a business decision for themselves as to whether the risk is worth it for them or not.

Roy & Jesse also managed to leave out the information that they did not have a deposit from their clients, which is the most common business practice in the industry, and allows the primary coordinator to ensure that they are not in the exact situation we are in now, where someone, somewhere, ran out of money, and the circulators are the ones left holding the bag.  Roy & Jesse owe just me $85,000. I know that he owes many other coordinators as well, including including Carolyn, the Harwig‘s & Tyler.  

It is beyond unacceptable to ask circulators to work in freezing cold weather on Black Friday, Thanksgiving Day, and all the shopping days leading up to and including Christmas Eve, and then not pay them AT ALL, when they were promised to have been paid in time for Christmas.  

I held they signatures I had back, until the very last day, because I had already paid 85% out to my circulators, because I don’t believe in making circulator wait for work they have completed, especially at the holidays, which is what they had been busting their butts to earn the money for in the first place!  However, he was unaware I had already pre-paid my team, and still made no effort at all to get them any money before Christmas, which would have ruined Christmas for dozens and dozens of families!

what’s worse is he never told me or us that we weren’t able to expect payment Until the day before we were supposed to turn in
On that last day, Roy had Jesse Wineberry, a six-time elected official to the Washington State Senate contact me, and explain that once the signatures were turned in everybody would be paid immediately. (I have several text and voice messages from both Jesse and Roy begging me to get them the signatures I had, so they use them to qualify I-1000, and that I would be paid immediately after turning them in.)

I accepted Jesse’s word, and delivered the signatures to them.  However, no payment was forthcoming.  The “immediately” turned into “within seven days.”  After the 7 days went by, it became “within 30 days, and then “within 60 days.”   It was during this time that we discovered that we had been lied to as well, about Roy working without a deposit, and then the entire project having been done, not only without a deposit, but on spec!!!  I had no recourse but to threaten legal action if I was not paid.  That was when Roy sent the most ludicrous thing I have ever seen:  A promissory note that promised to pay me $20,000  within 7 days after the signatures were submitted, but in any random amount and on any random days, but in full within 60 days from the date he signed it.  He had previously given me 2 different dates upon which he would make payments, but he has failed to pay any amount on any date he has promised to.

Our goal in asking for the folks who are still owed money is to work to find a total amount owed to all circulators, and to be able to negotiate for EVERYONE, not leave each coordinator or circulator to try to negotiate on their own.  We have more power together than we do as smaller teams or individuals.  

My educated opinion is that Jesse plans to use I-1000 to create a publicity platform from which he can launch another run for office in the near future.  (For anyone unaware, I-1000 is to repeal an existing bill I-200, which banned affirmative action in WA, and I-1000 would bring it back.)  The publicity as a champion of I-1000 and civil rights issues is absolutely ironic, when that initiative was qualified on the UNPAID BACKS OF MINORITIES, LGBTQ, WOMEN, and VETERANS…the exact groups that I-1000 would seek protections for, and yet Jesse Wineberry had no qualms about letting those people go through the holidays with no pay for their hard work, so HE can get his platform!

If you are reading this letter, it is because we offered Roy and Jesse an opportunity to accept a settlement of 2/3rds of what they owe us to resolve their debt and pay within 10 days. They either declined or could not come up with the money, even after all this time, to pay the people they owe, while they are attempting to raise up I-1000 with Jesse Wineberry as one of it’s primary supporters, but could or would not pay the people who did the work to get it before the legislature & on the ballot.  

It would be (or should be) obvious to any proponent or supporter of an issue that you want the voting public to choose your side of, that paying your workers is essential.  Otherwise, they can become very unruly, and seek out the attention of the voters by way of the media, to ensure that the voters become aware that people like Jesse Wineberry who are two-faced liars, who are willing to sacrifice the very people he claims to want to assist, if it gets him farther ahead.  Personally, I don’t think that will go very well for him, and that the media will see the irony instantly, and jump onto this issue, which will be our plan, once we receive and collate the information from you guys about what we are owed by Roy and Jesse”

The post Unpaid Petition Circulators Revealed I-1000 Sponsors’ Lies appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

The plaintiffs’ legal team hired Dr. William Huber, who earned a PhD in mathematics from Columbia University and holds a current PStat Certification (“Professional Statistician”) from the American Statistical Association, to comb through the SoS’s Public Records data. In his report, Dr. Huber states “the SoS did not carry out an ‘unrestricted random sample’ as required by the regulations (WAC 434-379-010)” and “the ‘protection against misrepresentation of the population’ [Snedecor and Cochran] afforded by an unrestricted random sample has not been achieved. Therefore, the SoS has not shown an objectively valid basis to certify the I-1000 petition.”

“The inconsistent handling of I-1000 petitions has given the SoS a difficult task with little margin for error. Unforeseen issues such as: two different versions of petition sheets in circulation; sticker-covered petition sheets; a signature gatherer who is under investigation by the Washington State Patrol for signature fraud; wet sheets that had to be dried out, etc. all contributed to shortcomings and errors in the SoS’s treatment of I-1000 signature petitions.” Mr. Qiu said. “We are asking the court to issue a citation requiring the SoS to submit the petitions to the court for examination.”

###

The post PRESS RELEASE – THE SECRETARY OF STATE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH WAC REQUIREMENT AND HAS NO VALID BASIS TO CERTIFY I-1000 appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

The legal action, naming Secretary of State Kim Wyman as defendant in her official capacity, is supported by American Coalition for Equality (ACE), a non-profit organization focusing on promoting equality for all Americans.

Mr. Qiu stated, “The I-1000 certification process is full of irregularities and we demand a transparent review of the signatures and the petition sheets.”

“The sponsors of I-1000 attached a sticker altering the front of the different initiative petitions after the petitions were signed and before turning them in as supporting I-1000. The Secretary of State wrongly counted the signatures on those different initiative petitions as valid signatures in support of I-1000. “Mr. Qiu said, “We can’t allow the Secretary of State to set this bad precedent and rock the foundation of our initiative process.”

According to the filed court documents, there are other issues ranging from questionable signatures, to the validity of their sampling practice. “Hopefully, we can get to the bottom of these irregularities through our justice system.” Mr. Qiu continued.

###

[UPDATE: PRESS RELEASE – THE SECRETARY OF STATE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH WAC REQUIREMENT AND HAS NO VALID BASIS TO CERTIFY I-1000 ]

The post PRESS RELEASE – LAWSUIT FILED QUESTIONING INITIATIVE 1000 VALIDITY appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

We tweeted “There are 3 versions of I-1000 petition sheets at SOS! … And they use stickers to cover the front. In other words, what people saw and signed are different from what SOS saw. Do you think this is acceptable?” And one I-1000 supporter responded to our tweets : “Do you have proof of this? Otherwise you are accusing the SOS and I 1000 campaign of fraud, without evidence. …” — Of course, we have evidence!

We went to SOS election office on January 31st, and observed the I-1000 petition validation process. Unfortunately, we were not able to physically exam those sticker covered I-1000 petition sheets. Scanned images on computer screens are not able to differentiate sticker covered petition sheets from the regular ones. We were told that election office would take the 216 sticker covered petition sheets out from archive and scan them the next few days. And we would be allowed to observe and see those sticker covered petition sheets at that time.

However, Assistant Secretary of State, Mark Neary, only allows us to see the actual sticker covered I-1000 petition sheets till AFTER I-1000 certification process is completed. He first rejected our request to physically exam those sticker covered petition sheets. When he learned that we could observe those sticker covered petition sheets while election office scanning them, he told them to cancel the planned scanning!!! Why is Mark Neary so afraid of us seeing the actual sticker covered petition sheets now?

Citing RCW 29A.72.170 , Mark claims that their hands are tied, and they can not reject sticker covered petition sheets. However let’s exam the details. According to RWC 29A.72.170, SOS can reject a petition based on violation of RCW 29A.72.110. The RCW 29A.71.110 language on I-1000 petition says “We, the undersigned citizens and legal voters of the State of Washington, respectfully direct that this petition and the proposed measure known as Initiative Measure No. 1000 and entitled as set forth above , a full, true, and correct copy of which is printed on the reverse side of this petition, be transmitted to the legislature of the State of Washington at its next ensuing regular session, … ” The sticker covered section is the “as set forth above” section. Therefore, the reality is that there are two physical copies of completely different ballot title and summary on one petition sheet. One copy is showing on the sticker, another copy is covered up by the sticker. Technically, there are two sheets co-existing on one petition, will SOS transmit both copies of ballot title and summary to the legislature? That is why RCW 29A.72.100 clearly states “Each petition at the time of circulating, signing, and filing with the secretary of state must consist of not more than one sheet …”

RCW 29A.72.170 provides SOS enough reason to reject those 216 sticker covered I-1000 petition sheets. However, SOS has no interest of rejecting them. Is it indeed a big deal that SOS accepts them? Read on and you be the judge.

According to PDC report, I-1000 sponsors were billed for petition design twice. They were first billed on August 15th. The version we captured from their site on August 31st contains ballot title, summary, and text that are completely different from those of I-1000 . They were billed the second time on November 9th. And the version we captured from their site on November 11th contains I-1000 ballot title, summary, and text. Between August 15th, and November 9th, they encountered $5,239 signature collection cost. At their published $1 per signature rate, that worked out to be 5,239 signatures. At maximum 20 signatures per sheet, signatures on the 277 (61 w/o sticker +216 w/sticker) problematic petition sheets could all be signed before November 9th!

I-1000 petitioners’ excuse of trying to save money just can’t fly. First of all, according to PDC report, a 300 petition sheet order on August 31, 2018 only cost them $255. Which is more cost effective? To reprint 300 copies of petition with I-1000 ballot title and summary or to manually glue on 300 stickers with I-1000 ballot title and summary? Secondly, they are willing to spend over $1 million on signature collection, $255 is nothing in comparison. However, if they had already collected signatures with those petition sheets, then glued on I-1000 ballot title and summary with stickers AFTERWARDS makes perfect sense. But, this would be bait and switch!

There are more issues with the 216 sheets of I-1000 petition. According to the tips we received, backs of those problematic I-1000 petition sheets have text of Initiative 1644 – yes, a completely different initiative! Citing recent court decision on I-1639, SOS said they could not reject those petition sheets based on language differences. However, I-1639 petition has the I-1639 text on the back. while those problematic I-1000 petition sheets have text of a completely different initiative on the back! You can compare I-1644 text to I-1000 text on SOS site.

The only right thing for SOS to do is to reject those sticker covered petition sheets and protect the integrity of our Initiative Process!If you support our effort, please contact SOS, and demand public scrutiny of ALL I-1000 petition sheets. And definitely demand SOS to reject those sticker patched I-1000 petition sheets. Please call or email Assistant Secretary of State Mark Neary at (360) 902-4186 or mark.neary@sos.wa.gov.

The post The Integrity of Our Initiative Process is Under Attack appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.