Another Friday Bummer From the Secretary of State: R-71 Suddenly Doing Much Better
Last Friday, the Secretary of State's office reported that the first batch of signatures they examined for anti-gay measure R-71 was clean as a whistle, a good start toward getting the measure on the ballot. Then all this week, it reported high failure rates for the petitions, making it look like the measure wouldn't make it. 
Now, late this afternoon, it lets us know that many of those failures have been switched to successes, per the work of a "Master Checker," who determines whether the signatures have been wrongly rejected. (For example, sometimes the state is able to verify a previously unverifiable signature by contacting the county.) Now, R-71's error rate is down to 11.63%, which could put it on pace to make the ballot. (The highest error rate it can have while still making the ballot is 12.42%, though its rate of duplicate signatures will continue to go up as the count continues.) I know you're just doing your job, Secretary of State, but, as I'm sure a lot of disappointed little girls would tell you, don't promise a pony if you can't deliver one.
4 comment(s)
The United States of America says:
I'm becoming more happy to see some good news in my life. I just need to get the error rate down to 0%.
Posted On: Friday, Aug. 7 2009 @ 5:14PM
Tired of this theocracey says:
I thought the problem you right wing/evangelical whack jobs had was with 'gay marriage'. Since our state approved civil unions instead, what's the problem you have now??
Oh and by the way, the world IS indeed much older than 6,000 years. As long as you believe that it isn't, you will always be just religious whack jobs to the rest of us. Happy picking and choosing which texts of the bible to literally translate, and which ones to pretend God wants you to over look. Hate filled morons!
Posted On: Saturday, Aug. 8 2009 @ 9:37AM
Julie says:
Why is it impossible to find your endorsements online? Your search tool obviously doesn't work for using either the words "elections" or "endorsements" because "0" comes in either search result.
It's kind of pathetic that your endorsements are so impossible to find, which is indicative of how poorly run the SW has become and how awful your embrace of programming and Internet Technology.
If you can manage to muster the capability to use email, be sure to send me the link. I'm out of town and voting absentee, but would be curious about your endorsements.
Julie Bridger-Smith
Posted On: Sunday, Aug. 9 2009 @ 9:15PM
Seely says:
Julia: You can't find our endorsements online because we quit endorsing candidates in 2006.
Posted On: Monday, Aug. 10 2009 @ 11:27AM