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).

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.

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)