Today’s release of R-71 data has the total signatures examined at 117,069 (85.0% of the total). There have been 13,815 invalid signatures found, for an uncorrected rejection rate of 11.80%.
The invalid signatures include 11,178 that are not found in the voting rolls, 1,477 duplicates, and 1,160 that did not match the signature on file. There are 56 pending signatures. With 1,477 duplicates, we expect a duplication rate of about 1.82% for the petition.
The V2 estimator gives the projected number of valid signatures as 121,129, a surplus of 552 signatures over the 120,577 needed to qualify for the ballot. The overall rejection rate for the total petition is now expected to be 12.03%.
A few more details can be found after the fold.
Of course these projections assume that the underlying error rates are representative of those in the remaining signatures. But there is a wrinkle: a third-stage check is being conducted on some of the invalid signatures using the most current voter database. As Brian Zylstra from the Office of the Secretary of State explains:
[a]nother 152 previously “not founds” in Volumes 221 through 266 were moved to the “accepted” pile on Monday. There now have been 713 names moved to the “accepted” category after a review of Volumes 1-266. On this spreadsheet, Volume 266 is highlighted, which shows how far the third checkers have gone with this particular check. The third check process was started as a way to review the names of petition signers whose names did not appear on the snapshot of the voter registration database that checkers had been using from the start of the checking process. The live version of this database is being used to check those names in question.
For our purposes, this means that the projection of total valid signatures should underestimate the actual number because we are starting with rates based on completed stage-two checks but partially completed stage-three checks.
Here is a graph of the trend in projected signatures since 11 Aug. The vertical bars are 95% confidence intervals; the red line shows the signatures needed to qualify.
We see a slight increase in the total valid signature projection compared to yesterday. This probably reflects those signatures added in from the third phase checks. Either way, the results suggest that, barring any surprises, R-71 should qualify for the ballot.
Didn’t the Seattle Times recently editorialize that the state should conceal the identities of R-71 petition signers? Well, now they’re saying the names of R-71 donors (i.e., gay rights advocates) should be disclosed. “It’s the law,” they bray.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....onors.html
Thereby once again demonstrating it’s the partisan rag of record in Washington State.
RR, I don’t think contributors to the campaign supporting R-71 would be bothered by PDC disclosure of their identities. The important issue is the identities of the bigoted opponents of civil rights.
If the Blethen Times is backing disclosure of those contributors, good for them.
@1 Roger, you’ve got things a bit mixed up. It was the anti-gay Protect Marriage Washington that wants to hide both their petition signer’s names and the names of their donors. I don’t know if ST has contradicted themselves or not with wanting one type of info sealed and the other not, but the “seal the donor names” controversy was not started by gay-rights advocates. Quite the opposite. The Public Disclosure Commission will be meeting Thurs afternoon to decide whether PMW can have their donor’s names sealed (now that they’ve been public on the PDC website since June, lol!).
Help preserve the domestic partnership law by signing up with Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST.org). And of course, vote APPROVED on Ref. 71 if ti gets to the ballot.
“anti-gay”???
What does that mean exactly?
Does it mean disagreeing with changing the definition of marriage??
Does that make you “anti-gay”??
I suppose you could be tagged as anti-Christian/anti-Catholic…but it seems a waste of time to preface anyone you disagree with as ANTI- something.
Save words…especially hot lingo like you use Lurleen.
is there a name for obsession with math?
mathelomania?
why not count the number of pixels on your screen, and other fascinating trivia?
@4 SJ concis Mr. C
Mr. C does not understand the difference between domestic partnership and marriage; nor does he understand the meaning in the US Constitution of freedom of association.
He may also not understand that there are gay Christians, indeed MANY Christians who do not agree with various stands he takes,
Hope this is a helpful summary.
Dear Fatone–
I asked what “anti-gay” meant.
Go stuff your face with more carbs and beg for free Health Insurance.
SeattleJew–
Nice Picture of you in front of your vile computer!
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/78277/
They have now examined 125,631 signatures as of today, and the rejection rate has only marginally increased to 11.81%. So it looks like this thing will be on the ballot.
Waiting for Darryl’s analysis this evening of course …