Blockbuster Democracy - logo
 

Oregon's Move to Regulate Signature Gathering

Joe Mathews - 
May 27, 2009 - 9:29am

Here's an interesting story from last week's Oregonian on that state legislature's efforts to curb signature fraud. (Your blogger is quoted in it). Oregon already is rare among initiative states for banning per-signature pay for circulators. Since 2007, it has required that gatherers register with the state.

Such regulations have made signature gathering slightly more expensive in Oregon, according to those who work there. (The per-signature system is nothing if not economically efficient). But widespread signature fraud in other states -- most notably Arizona's Maricopa County last year -- requires some response.

The Oregon legislation does two things.

1. It seeks to bar signature gatherers with a history of fraud from circulating petitions, and imposes large fines against companies that are found to have permitted fraud knowingly. My reaction: all to the good.

2. It requires that signatures be turned in at least once a month. This is billed as anti-fraud device. If it were adopted in a pay-per-signature state like California, it also could save some money for initiative sponsors by combating hoarding (circulators often hang onto petitions for a long time until the price per-signature goes up.

These are both modest reforms. The one potential problem is how #1 is enforced. In my experience, signature gatherers are sometimes people who have had problems in their lives (often substance abuse) or gaps in their work histories that make it difficult for them to secure jobs from more traditional employers. I have no trouble with barring gatherers who have engaged in petition fraud. But I fear that the law might be used to prevent anyone with a criminal history from collecting signatures. To do so would keep some of the best circulators in the country out of Oregon, and for no good reason.

 

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket
Tags:

Comments

Oregon Regulation

Submitted by CaliforniaScreaming on May 28, 2009 - 8:35am.

I think this is a good step overall. Having circulators regulated had to happen. Doing this for years, I seen how coordinators would go to the lowest common denominator. Though some will take the high road and not contract with people with bad reputations. I have complained for years to coordinators "that you either clean up your industry or the government will clean it up and you won't like it." Finally some companies are doing self administered backgrounds checks on circulators. For the money that lobbyists put into these campaigns I wouldn't see why they would risk their money and reputation by not having background checks of circulators. Seriously how much money was thrown away in Arizona by donors who must have felt ripped off because of widespread fraud? Also not good to have 20 year olds with no college experience running an office. I would want to know my money was spent wisely. As for turning in signatures every month, I think that is minor because most of the companies vigorously change the color of the petition because they want to avoid "sandbaggers". Usually a petition will pay a certain price for one color and if there is a price change then it will change color as well. Pay determined by color of petitions.
I think the states should requires badges and paid petitions can only be picked up a county board of elections. Volunteer petitions should be able to be distributed as usual. Each one with serial numbers or bar codes. Pay per hour will ultimately be stricken down as unconstitutional. Other federal courts have ruled unconstitutional and will ultimately go to Supreme Court and Court will rule against mandating pay per hour. Sales forces have used commission pay or pay by sales forever.
I don't like the 1000 signature requirement just to have a petition filed. That is a blatant impediment to get anything filed.