<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Capitol Record &#187; R71</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/tag/r71/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord</link>
	<description>News, background and notes on Washington state government.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:14:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Release R71 initiative signatures, U.S. District Court Judge rules</title>
		<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2011/10/release-r71-initiative-signatures-u-s-district-court-judge-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2011/10/release-r71-initiative-signatures-u-s-district-court-judge-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:51:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Niki Reading</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Doe v. Reed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R71]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same-sex marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/?p=7944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle ruled today that Referendum 71 petition signatures are a public record &#8212; and cannot be exempted from it due to fear of retribution to those who signed the referendum on the state&#8217;s anything-but-marriage law. For more details on the case, known as Doe v. Reed, go here. And for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2011/10/release-r71-initiative-signatures-u-s-district-court-judge-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reed: R71 hearing went &#8220;very, very well&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2010/04/reed-r71-hearing-went-very-very-well/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2010/04/reed-r71-hearing-went-very-very-well/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:57:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Niki Reading</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R71]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/?p=4904</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m rushing to a conference call with Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna, but here&#8217;s an initial report on Reed&#8217;s reaction to their hearing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court over whether signatures to initiative petitions are a public record: It went &#8220;very, very well.&#8221; Here are his full remarks, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2010/04/reed-r71-hearing-went-very-very-well/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oregon joins Washington on petition signature lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2010/03/oregon-joins-washington-on-petition-signature-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2010/03/oregon-joins-washington-on-petition-signature-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:01:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Niki Reading</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[petition signatures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public record]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R71]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/?p=4634</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Washington has company &#8212; 17 states, including Oregon &#8212; have joined in the lawsuit over whether signatures on initiative and referendum petitions are a public record. Secretary of State Sam Reed&#8217;s office sent out a note today. &#8220;The initiative process cannot operate in secret,&#8221; Kate Brown, Oregon&#8217;s Secretary of State, said. She said Oregon was [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2010/03/oregon-joins-washington-on-petition-signature-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Supreme Court will hear R71 signature debate April 28&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2010/02/u-s-supreme-court-will-hear-r71-signature-debate-april-28/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2010/02/u-s-supreme-court-will-hear-r71-signature-debate-april-28/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:35:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Niki Reading</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R71]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/?p=3746</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that they&#8217;ll hear the case over whether Referendum 71 petition signatures are a public record, and Attorney General Rob McKenna will argue the case. The Secretary of State&#8217;s blog has an excellent background post. Basically: The referendum asked voters whether the 2009 extensions of the domestic partnership law should [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2010/02/u-s-supreme-court-will-hear-r71-signature-debate-april-28/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Watch The Impact: Referendum 71, Nile Valley Landslide and more</title>
		<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/11/watch-the-impact-referendum-71-nile-valley-landslide-and-more/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/11/watch-the-impact-referendum-71-nile-valley-landslide-and-more/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:42:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Niki Reading</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nile Valley landslide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R71]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Impact]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/?p=2472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From host Jessica Gao: Washington voters make history with the approval of Referendum 71, which expands the rights of domestic partners to include all the state-granted rights of married couples. It is the country’s first ever statewide vote in support of a gay rights issue. We talk with State Senator Joe McDermott (D-Seattle) about what [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/11/watch-the-impact-referendum-71-nile-valley-landslide-and-more/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic partnership expansion takes effect Dec. 3</title>
		<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/11/domestic-partnership-expansion-takes-effect-dec-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/11/domestic-partnership-expansion-takes-effect-dec-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Niki Reading</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R71]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/?p=2470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Voters approved Referendum 71, which means Senate Bill 5688 &#8212; to extend all the state-granted rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners &#8212; stands. According to the Secretary of State&#8217;s blog, there&#8217;s a 30-day waiting period after the election for the law to take effect. That means the expanded rights won&#8217;t be available to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/11/domestic-partnership-expansion-takes-effect-dec-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Updated Referendum 71 numbers: 52.48 percent of votes are to approve</title>
		<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/11/updated-referendum-71-numbers-52-48-percent-of-votes-are-to-approve/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/11/updated-referendum-71-numbers-52-48-percent-of-votes-are-to-approve/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:02:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Niki Reading</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R71]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[referendum 71]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/?p=2456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Secretary of State has posted updated numbers on Referendum 71, which would give state registered domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities that married couples receive from the state. Now: 52.48 percent of votes are to approve the measure, with 47.52 percent against. As for Initiative 1033, which would control government growth and reduce [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/11/updated-referendum-71-numbers-52-48-percent-of-votes-are-to-approve/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thursday Q&amp;A: Larry Stickney on why you should vote against Referendum 71</title>
		<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/10/thursday-qa-larry-stickney-on-why-you-should-vote-against-referendum-71/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/10/thursday-qa-larry-stickney-on-why-you-should-vote-against-referendum-71/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:26:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Niki Reading</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R71]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thursday Q&A]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/?p=2426</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week, I interviewed Larry Stickney, campaign manager of Protect Marriage Washington, which opposes Referendum 71. Below, you&#8217;ll find the complete text of our interview. When you&#8217;re done reading, check out Anne Levinson, on why she thinks voters should approve Referendum 71. Q. Why should voters reject Referendum 71 (which would extend all state-granted rights [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/10/thursday-qa-larry-stickney-on-why-you-should-vote-against-referendum-71/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thursday Q&amp;A: Anne Levinson on why you should approve Referendum 71</title>
		<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/10/thursday-qa-anne-levinson-on-why-you-should-approve-referendum-71/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/10/thursday-qa-anne-levinson-on-why-you-should-approve-referendum-71/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:21:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Niki Reading</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R71]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[referendum 71]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thursday Q&A]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/?p=2382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week&#8217;s Q&#38;A is with Anne Levinson, chair of the Approve Referendum 71 campaign. I talked to her about why she&#8217;s in favor of the referendum and some things she wants to clear up about it. Next Thursday, I&#8217;ll talk to a representative from the opposite camp on why they want the referendum to be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/10/thursday-qa-anne-levinson-on-why-you-should-approve-referendum-71/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Justice: Don&#8217;t release the signatures</title>
		<link>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/10/supreme-court-justice-dont-release-the-signatures/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/10/supreme-court-justice-dont-release-the-signatures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:47:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Niki Reading</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public record]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R71]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/?p=2378</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has blocked the release of signatures on the Referendum 71 petitions, the latest move in a saga over whether petition signatures are a public record. We&#8217;ll have more information as it&#8217;s available.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2009/10/supreme-court-justice-dont-release-the-signatures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

