Petition Circulators

In my summer column on Internet signature gathering, I missed this interesting June 2008 report commissioned by the Center for Governmental Studies on the very same subject. It notes there are real problems with such gathering, but also notes that there is a real risk of forgery under the current signature regime.

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. 

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

That state's attorney general has issued a legal opinion saying private property owners have a legal right to bar signature gatherers. This is a dangerous ruling, but fits a pattern. Even some public entities -- including post offices -- have tried to keep petition circulators away. But in Nebraska, and in the courts, there is less and less public space for the people to petition their government. Private property rights seem to be more important than the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of assembly.

The Omaha World-Herald reports that property owners are already using this authority to attempt to shut down signature gathering in several Nebraska towns. (Hat tip to ballotpedia)

STRIKE TWO: Arkansas's attorney general, for the second time, has rejected the language of a ballot initiative filed to deny public benefits to unauthorized immigrants. The a.g. has said the language is ambiguous and that initiative sponsors need to hire an attorney; he suggested that he could substitute language himself, but after being criticized for his first rejection of the measure, he decided not to.

THESE COPS ARE MAD: Police officers in Monrovia, Calif are locked in a contract fight, and they've decided to use the ballot initiative process to help. They're circulating petitions on two local initiatives: one that would mandate they are paid at least the average salary of other local police departments, and another to prevent other city officials from making more than their counterparts in nearby municipalities. Also, they have posted billboards around town that read: "You're Approaching Monrovia. Higher Violent Crime. Fewer Officers Patrolling. Thank the City Manager and City Council." 

Here's an up-to-the-minute report from the streets of California: Gov. Schwarzenegger's redistricting ballot initiative appears to be struggling to attract enough signatures on the street, but it's unclear if the problem is lack of voter interest, hoarding by signature gatherers expecting a price increase, or some combination of the two.

This weekend, gatherers were told to turn in the current petitions they have for redistricting, three gatherers told me this afternoon. Signatures on these are worth $2 per signature. The idea behind the turn-in is to fight hoarding. (Unless you issue new versions of a petition -- either with a different letter on the sheet or in a different color paper, gatherers will hold onto signatures until sponsors raise the per-signature price) A new version of the redistricting petition -- same initiative but different color paper -- will be issued this week. Signatures on that new version will be paying $2.25 a signature, the gatherers have been told. The price increase suggests that the redistricting initiative is still seriously short of signatures, and time is running short to get the measure qualified for the November ballot.

In contrast, the anti-same sex marriage initiative appears to have enough signatures, according to gatherers. Sponsors of that initiative have ordered a "final turn in" for tonight. Those sigs are worth $1.40 or $1.50 per signature. Initiatives on victims rights ($2) and alternative fuels ($1.90) continue to circulate.