Signature Gatherers

No Sigs Hired Yet On Recall

Joe Mathews — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:57:00 -0400

In a quick morning canvas of signature gatherers and local coordinators in California, none of the half-dozen people I checked with around the state has been hired to do the Arnold recall as yet. This is the slow season for the signature gathering game. Many of California's gatherers are working on local initiative or referendum petitions -- there's a significant one in Stockton, and several in Southern California -- or are out of state. The good news for supporters of recalling Arnold is that it wouldn't be hard to hire signature gatherers fast, and with little else on the street, the price wouldn't be particularly high.

Ideas For Arizona's Signature Mess

Joe Mathews — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:44:00 -0400

The Arizona Daily Star offers up a long editorial on the need to fix the state's initiative process. It's timely. Three measures were knocked off the ballot because of invalid signatures and two others made the ballot despite questions about their signatures. What to do?

The Star offers two ideas, one bad and one good. The first involves getting rid of paid signature gatherers. The problem: volunteer drives are less efficient and more expensive, on a per-signature basis. That's why there hasn't been a successful volunteer petition drive for a statewide measure in California since 1982. True professional petition circulators are a safeguard against fraud. Eliminating them would create more problems than it solves.

The second idea is a better one: loosening the deadline. Arizona has a fairly tight deadline for getting signatures and qualifying for the ballot -- four months. That makes signature gathering more expensive and creates an incentive for fraud. If you want true grass roots signature gathering, the deadline should be lifted entirely. (On this second point, the Tuscon Citizen agrees).

I'd also like to see Internet signature gathering with security measures that allow for independent verification.

Summer Column: It's Time To Permit Voters To Sign Initiative Petitions On the Internet

Joe Mathews — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:19:00 -0400

After a busy spring and summer, signature gathering across the country is finally reaching its 2008 conclusion. The final deadlines for turning in signatures for November ballot initiatives are this week in three states: Colorado (August 4), North Dakota (August 5), and Ohio (August 6). Deadlines in all the other states have already passed. So I'm heading to a small town in rural Wisconsin (your blogger's Cheesehead in-laws have a bug-infested family cottage on a lake) for a week to catch up on sleep (you may have noticed a few more mental hiccups than usual on the blog lately) and do some writing. I plan to stay away from email and the Internet until Aug. 11. But before I go, I wanted to advance an idea: permitting voters to sign initiative petitions on-line.

In some states, there's already limited circulation by Internet. If a petition is formatted right, it can be emailed to voters, who print it out, sign it and send it in. That's fine, but I'd like to go further, permitting voters to add their names to ballot initiative petitions as they now do to other on-line petitions. For security's sake, the voters would have to provide more than just their real name. They'd have to give an address, an email, and a phone number that matches the number on their voter registration--a phone number where they could be reached to verify that their signature is authentic.

Opening up signature gathering in this way would address several of the major criticisms of direct democracy in general and the ballot initiative process in particular. Let's go through them one by one.

CRITICISM 1. That the ballot process is dominated by wealthy special interests. That's largely true--because of the costs involved in signature gathering. In California, for example, it now takes at least $2 million to qualify a measure. But Internet signatures would permit grass roots groups to circulate petitions at a much lower cost.

2. That paid signature gatherers dominate direct democracy. That's also true. In fact, because of the logistical difficulties in fielding volunteer petition gatherers, it's actually cheaper to hire paid gatherers than to use volunteers. Most "reforms" targeting signature gatherers would make signature gathering more costly and complicated -- thus INCREASING the need for paid petition circulators. Allowing petitions to circulate easily on the Internet would be one of the few ways to make paid gatherers less central to the process.

3. That signature deadlines are too short. The Internet signature gathering would be faster and make ridiculously short timelines like the one in Oklahoma, which permits only 90 days to get the signatures, more reasonable.

4. That blocking campaigns have become too aggressive. This is a conservative complaint that is getting more attention, though I tend to discount it. (Blocking campaigns have long been common practice in direct democracy, and I've yet to see a campaign that was truly effective in stopping signature gathering. The real problem is the short deadlines in some states and the attempts to use the law and, in Oklahoma's case, law enforcement to shut down campaigns that the political class opposes). On the Internet, however, blocking campaigns -- which usually consist of sending out goons of some sort to harass signature gatherers and those they approach -- shouldn't be a factor.

The obvious objection to permitting Internet signatures is security. In an era of conspiracy theories about electronic voting (and real concern about the records and tactics of companies such as Diebold), security concerns must be taken into account. That's why state officials (and local officials in the case of local ballot measures) must receive enough personal data from the Internet signers to verify that they've signed.

But remember, the system being replaced is not a particularly secure one. In most states, including California, the overwhelming majority of signatures are never checked. Instead, random sampling is done to check the signatures and addresses against registration records. Voters who sign the petitions are not contacted. The Internet signature regime I'm proposing would require more checking than we currently have -- likely at some added costs to states.

Some politicians and opponents of direct democracy might object that Internet signatures thus require an indirect state subsidy. That may well be true. My view: it's a small price to pay for promoting a more open, grass roots, democratic system of direct democracy. And if there are still objections to the added costs of verification, why not charge a higher filing fee to initiative sponsors to cover the cost? California's current fee for filing -- $200 -- doesn't begin to match the cost to the attorney general's office of reviewing the measure, writing a title and summary, and then defending it in court.

Who else might object to Internet signatures? The signature gathering companies, naturally. But I think they'd still get business, particularly in cases in which time is short and an initiative needs a number of signatures fast. I also think such companies, many of which have developed their own databases and software for verifying signatures, would find that they could sell their verification work to initiative sponsors and perhaps even states and municipalities. With petitions circulating on the Internet, there would be more measures out there -- and that higher volume would mean more business.

Well, there's my idea. Please discuss and post. I'll write more when I'm back on the grid.

Attack On Three Colorado Measures

Joe Mathews — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:49:00 -0400

The above ad is running in Colorado. It attacks the well-known Amendment 47 (the Right to Work measure) and two other ballot initiatives supported by business and opposed by labor. Denver's ABC station does a fact-check of the ad here.

The ad is interesting for students of direct democracy because it criticizes the measures not for their content but for how signatures were gathered. For those who know the blockbuster democracy business, the most interesting part is the claim that people with criminal records helped gather signatures. No kidding!

A note from planet reality: the sort of people who are willing to work long hours gathering signatures and getting paid in cash often have criminal records. In my own experience with gatherers, many have substance abuse problems. If folks with records were barred from gathering signatures, there would be no signature gatherers in America--and no ballot initiatives.

'The War On Direct Democracy'

Joe Mathews — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:59:00 -0400

John Fund writes in the Wall Street Journal that the left is waging a war on direct democracy by attempting to obstruct gatherers for conservative initiatives. There's some truth in the argument, but it goes too far. Blocking campaigns of the type Fund describes have long been part of the initiative game. Experience and academic studies show they're ineffective. And a lack of organization and money in the Connerly camp is a big part of the reason for the failure of the anti-affirmative action measures.

The real war against direct democracy is a bipartisan one, and it's being waged by elected officials who, in the name of "cleaning up" signature gathering, change the law to make it harder to gather signatures. These laws usually restrict "out of state" gatherers (petition circulators are a traveling army, so almost everyone who knows how to do this is at some level "out of state") or limit the time to gather sigantures (a true liberal, democratic form would extend or even lift deadlines to permit community groups or true grasroots organizations to gather signatures over the period of a year or more).

A Big Legal Victory for Nader, Signature Gatherers

Joe Mathews — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:50:00 -0400

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down Arizona's residency requirement for signature gatherers as unconstitutional. It's not a surprise--residency requirements have died judicial deaths elsewhere, most notably in Colorado -- but it's still a big victory for professional petition circulators.

The case was brought by Ralph Nader and had nothing to do with ballot initiatives. Nader, in his efforts to get on the 2004 Arizona ballot as a presidential candidate, was frustrated by the state's rules requiring residency by those gathering signatures and requiring candidates to submit their qualifying signatures 90 days before the election. But the ruling applies to signature gatherers whether they are working for candidates or ballot initiatives. So the greatest impact of the decision will be on the blockbuster democracy business. Most likely, this decision will reduce the cost of qualifying a measure for the ballot. An army of 10,000 California signature gatherers lives next door to Arizona. Now they will be able to collect signatures there without having to move there and register to vote. The full decision is here.

PayDay Lenders Take Case on Signatures to Court

Joe Mathews — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:48:00 -0400

In Ohio, payday lenders have filed a ballot initiative to loosen regulation of their industry. But they haven't been able to begin gathering signatures because the state's attorney general has yet to sign off on the official langauge of the petition. This is a big problem in Ohio, which has a tight, 90-day window for gathering signatures. In an extraordinary move, the lenders have filed suit to cut the a.g. out of the process, the Columbus Dispatch reports.

The Great American Turn-In

Joe Mathews — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:53:00 -0400

This week, petition circulators all over the country are working around the clock to collect signatures to meet turn-in deadlines. Six states require that signatures be handed in between July 3 and July 7: Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon and Washington. Many of these professional gatherers are Californians who move to one of these states for the signature season. Hurry home, guys!

Already turned in this week: an initiative barring unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents in Arkansas; an initiative that would reduce some of Arizona's harsher penalties for businesses that hire unauthorized immigrants; and an anti-traffic initiative in Washington state; (Hat tip, ballotpedia).

A Rare Editorial

Joe Mathews — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:31:00 -0400

This is news: an American newspaper thinks there should be more ballot initiatives. It's the Daily Okahoman, a paper in a place that makes it very hard to qualify measures (by only permitting initiative sponsors 90 days). This goes against the grain; newspaper editors tend to be beard-stroking Madisonians who worry about the people having to vote too much on complicated stuff.

Don't Lie In Arizona

Joe Mathews — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:38:00 -0400

Watch out, John McCain. It is now a crime to lie while discussing politics in the state of Arizona. Of course, this new law applies not to politicians, city or state officials, or anyone in a position of authority. The criminalizing of lying is limited to only that most powerful of people: signature gatherers.

This legislation, recently signed into law by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, is pure madness. Who will decide who is lying and who is not? Probably judges and elected officials who don't like whatever petition the gatherers are circulating. What's next? Do circulators have to travel with lawyers? Perhaps we need legislation requiring circulators to tape all their conversations, like detectives must do when defendatns are confessing?

Lying is part of politics. Fraud by signature gatherers -- faking names, faking signatures -- should be prosecuted criminally and fiercely. And yes, signature gatherers should be honest in how they describe petitions. But any criminal law governing the subject will be, at best, selectively enforced. The right to petition your government is fundamental in any free society. Take it away, and people will seek other, more destructive ways to change things they don't like. In the end, the voters who sign petitions must be responsible for what they sign.