« To be (a Dem) or not to be, that is the question | Main | Gender Politics Wars »

June 06, 2008

Don't Forget How Sizemore Got to this Point

Our Oregon, a group that has for a long time taken a no-holds-barred stance in its efforts to stop Bill Sizemore, is complaining that he, through his agent, Tim Trickey, is continuing to circulate petitions on initiatives that the Secretary of State ordered off the streets.

Tim Trickey, head of a company that gathers citizen signatures for conservative initiatives, confirmed Wednesday that his employees continue to circulate petitions seeking to put the two initiatives on the November general election ballot. He said the state ban on gathering signatures is an unconstitutional infringement of the sponsors' free speech rights.

"To stop circulating a petition with so little time left is effectively killing the petition," Trickey said. "I believe that is their intention."

Under a new state law, six months after an initiative is certified for signature gathering, the sponsor is told to submit payroll and other records to the Elections Division, the attorney general or the Bureau of Labor and Industries. The sponsor then has 10 days to comply with the law or stop gathering signatures. ...

The sponsors of Initiative Petitions 51 and 53, which are being challenged by Our Oregon, submitted records to the Elections Division, and the ban on their gathering of signatures was lifted March 27. But Elections Division officials said they later concluded that the records submitted were insufficient, and the ban was reimposed May 9. It remains in effect.

I wrote about this back in early February (Stubborn Sizemore Threatens to Sue Some More"), as did Blue Oregon. In both of these posts, the comment sections offer a fairly detailed discussion between several parties - including myself, Rob Kremer, and Bill Sizemore - of the particulars involved as we knew them at the time. They also quote the explanation given by the Secretary of State.

I don't know that the public will ever be provided with the specific details on why the accounts submitted were deemed insufficient. Absent that, I still suspect what I concluded at the time:

I'm simply inclined to believe at this point that we have a sloppy and stubborn activist on one side and a partisan who dislikes him on the other, and both are costing everyone else money and their rights.

If Bill Bradbury wishes to put this mess to rest, then he should provide some details about specifically what was submitted to him and specifically why it was insufficient, as well as an explanation that would assuage concerns that he is simply being subjective in his application of the law and rules and thereby using the power of his office to impede or curtail the speech of his political foes.

Posted by Becky at June 6, 2008 10:14 AM