Petition Circulators

Printing petitions on carbon copy paper is a good idea -- if your intention is to let voters take home a copy of what they signed. (Often, they don't have time to read what they signed). It also would provide a very basic fraud protection. But carbon copies are often prohibited by state laws and regulations on petitions.

Folks in Daytona Beach, Florida, want to bring carbon copies into the process -- but for the wrong reasons. Backers of multiple ballot measures there -- six measures in all -- circulated three petitions together on carbon paper so voters could sign three petitions with one signature. That's efficient, I suppose, and a nice way to save money. And, yes, the circulators reportedly gave voters the option of signing a single petition separately. But carbon paper, in this case, is simply being used for mass production of ballot measures. That's not a good reason to change the law. (Hat tip: Ballot Access News).

Ryan Nicholson, a circulator, has launched an ambitious new forum at http://www.petitiondatabase.com. The site has a little bit of everything, including space to find other circulators with whom you can carpool and a feature that allows circulators to share information on anyone who might be engaging in signature fraud. There also separate forum pages for circulators to share information from each state. Please check it out.

In other news, a previous site that attempted to do something similar -- publicpetitioner.info -- is kaput.

Oklahoma has been one of the worst states to practice direct democracy. The short, 90-day time period for gathering signatures is a particular problem, making it difficult for anyone but the richest initiative sponsors to qualify a measure. (Such tight time limits, I would argue, also encourage petition fraud, though I've not seen enough data to say so for sure).

But this year, the Oklahoma legislature -- with only one dissenting vote -- opened up the process by passing legislation that would protect petition circulators and lift the 90-day limit. Now, Gov. Brad Henry has vetoed the measure after the legislature has left town (making it next to impossible to override the veto).

Henry argues that the bill's limitations on harassing signature gatherers (which has been something of a problem in Oklahoma) would infringe on the speech rights of others (essentially to scream at petition circulators, grab their paperwork, etc.). This is an interesting argument, and it may be a cynical one. In effect, his veto is an attempt to defend blocking campaigns, and puts the governor on the side of those who would limit access to the ballot.

Henry's veto message is below:

Nevada appears on its way to adopt a distribution requirement for petition circulators: to qualify an initiative, signatures would have to gather a minimum number of signatures in all four of the state's Congressional districts. (This represents a change from earlier versions of the bill, which would have required signatures from all 42 Assembly districts).

I'm torn on the question of distribution requirements. In principle, it's fair to require that signatures be gathered across the state -- a statewide measure should be truly statewide. In California, which doesn't have a signature requirement, the vast bulk of signatures come from the south. And the percentage of signatures collected in San Diego County, the hotbed of direct democracy in the state, far surpasses the percentage of state voters who live in that county.

But distribution requirements also add significantly to the cost of petition drives. And when signature gathering becomes more expensive, the initiative process can only be used by wealthy individuals and interest groups. 

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.

In an 8-0 vote, a committee of the Arizona House last week approved a bill that would bar signature gatherers from being paid per signature, the Republic reports.

This is potentially a big deal. Per-signature pay is the American standard for petition circulators, whether they are circulating ballot initiatives or candidate qualification papers. It's not clear what might replace such a system in Arizona. Hourly pay is probably not cost effective.

The bill still needs approval in another house committee, not to mention the full house and senate. But the idea appears to have political momentum in the wake of widespread fraud in signature gathering last year in the state.

There are plenty of initiatives in California cleared for circulation, but nothing on the street, as of my last check last weekend. The May 19 special election came too quickly for anyone to qualify an initiative, and the next scheduled statewide election isn't until June 2010. And many of state's signature gatherers have departed for Florida or Washington.

What are they working on there? In Florida, there are two redistricting initiatives on the ballot, paying 70 cents a piece. In Washington, a conservative, anti-property tax initiative is paying 75 cents. Both prices are low, but I'm told that circulators are showing a lot of interest in both petitions. Deflation and the bad economy have not spared direct democracy. (Hat tip: Public Petitioner).

The legislature is battling it out over the budget deal tonight. (The Senate is in caucus, and the Assembly floor session is in recess). Yep, Valentine's Day. One bit of news, pointed out first by KQED's John Myers. The legislature seems to be anticipating a special election on May 19. And yes, that is too early for ballot initiatives to be qualified. None of the measures currently approved for circulation seem to be circulating actively. Several initiative coordinators I know are on the way to other states where there are petitions circulating.

The Webster-Kirkwood Times offers a very detailed rundown of the initiative petitions now circulating on the streets of Missouri.

There's a lot of talk about new ballot measures circulating in California and other Western states. The California Teachers Assn., for example, has approved circulation of its initiative that would hike the state sales tax to create a new, protected fund for schools. But that initiative isn't in petition circulators' hands yet, according to a survey I conducted this morning. In fact, signature gatherers appear to be in wait and see mode. There are a handful of local measures. In Sacramento, circulators were just told to turn in signatures on a measure that would seek to put more power in the office of Mayor Kevin Johnson. But that's about it, for now. I'll check back again in a week, when, various circulators assure me, they expect to be busy.