John Hancocks in tug of war

Sign one of nearly a dozen initiatives circulating this spring, and you may be part of an effort to give voters a chance to make law in November.

But most petition drives fall far short of the number of signatures needed to make the ballot and are never submitted to the secretary of state’s office. Ever wonder what happens to your name and address on a petition that never gets turned in?

Anything the sponsors want, according to state law.

That’s apparently why the two different camps behind Referendum 65, a ballot proposal that failed last week to gather enough signatures, are fighting over access to some 100,000 names and addresses on the petitions they didn’t turn in. Longtime initiative maestro Tim Eyman has the petitions and said he won’t give them to the Faith and Freedom Network, an umbrella group of religious organizations that helped gather the lion’s share of the names.

Each is accusing the other of bad faith. Each is claiming to be looking out for the best interests of signers, who wanted to repeal the new state law forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation.

There’s no restriction on the use of the names and addresses on petitions that aren’t submitted, said deputy attorney general Jeff Even, the state’s expert in election law.

So if you sign an initiative that favors increased use of alternative energy, your name and address could be made available – even sold – to a candidate who wants stronger environmental controls. Sign a referendum to block a tax increase, and you could get a letter asking for a donation to an anti-tax candidate.

If petitions are turned in, they become a public record, which mean the names and addresses can’t be used for “commercial purposes.” But that restriction doesn’t apply to use by candidates, political parties or groups supporting or opposing a particular issue, Even said.

The argument over possession of the Referendum 65 petition was another sign of the tenuous nature of the alliance between Eyman and churches. Network members also criticized Eyman’s tactics, which included dressing up like Darth Vader for a press conference the day before the signature deadline.

“We’re not going to be intimidated or blackmailed into allowing these citizens who signed these petitions to have their names and addresses used … to do anything other than seeking a public vote on HB 2661,” Eyman said in an e-mail to his supporters around the state. “These voters did not sign R-65 petitions to be solicited by faith-based groups like Faith & Freedom.”

Eyman released a transcript of a phone message he received from Joe Fuiten, a Bothell, Wash., pastor who is chairman of the network. In it, Fuiten reportedly says he’ll make sure members of the network will make no more negative comments about Eyman if the signatures are turned over to him.

But Fuiten shot back that it’s Eyman who is reneging on the agreement they had when the two joined forces to try to overturn the new state law.

In a letter posted on the Faith & Freedom Network’s Web site blog, Fuiten insisted he was just trying to get Eyman – whom he described as having “a demonstrated penchant for not telling the whole truth” – to hold up his end of the deal.

“An offer to cease making public comments in exchange for Eyman fulfilling his agreement hardly constitutes intimidation but an offer of goodwill to let the matter be settled,” Fuiten wrote.

Despite their disagreements about how the referendum petition drive came out, both Eyman and the Faith & Freedom Network appear to have the same basic plan for the names on the petitions – create a mailing list for future campaigns on the same issue.

Eyman said he won’t use the names to solicit support for his other current initiative effort, which aims to re-enforce limits to license tab fees, or any future topic except a new challenge to the new anti-discrimination statute.

Gary Randall, president of Faith & Freedom, said Thursday the religious network had hoped to develop a mailing list for future efforts to overturn the law. If a new referendum or initiative campaign is launched, they’d probably mail a copy of that petition to the people who signed Referendum 65, asking them to sign the new proposal and have their friends sign it, too.

The network would have shared the list with other church groups who helped during this year’s signature drive. “But we don’t sell or lease out mailing lists,” Randall said. He knows some initiative groups do that, but “we never have.”

The signers of Referendum 65 might also be asked for a contribution to support such an effort, although “that was not the primary reason for wanting” the petitions, he added.

Randall, the pastor of a Portland church and a former radio and television talk show host, said he knows signature gathering operations routinely build mailing lists from the petitions they collect, and it doesn’t keep him from signing.

“If I signed a petition, I’m not surprised when I start getting information from that organization,” he said. “If I’m treated with respect, and I’m contacted with a sincere message, it doesn’t offend me.”