Signature Gatherers

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)

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter has been a strong critic of direct democracy. But he vetoed a bill that would have stepped up regulation of paid signature gatherers, arguing that it was unconstitutional because it would have treated paid gatherers different than volunteers.

This Associated Press story from Missouri tries to turn what is routine into a scandal. A reporter watches signature gathering in St. Louis on multiple ballot measures, and interviews a man who signs his name three separate times, not realizing he is signing three separate petitions -- including a Ward Connerly-backed anti-affirmative action initiative he doesn't like -- instead of just one. It appears the gatherer talked ot him only about the first petition, an eminent domain measure, and not the others, including the affirmative action one. This is treated as an outrage.

Yes, it would be nice if gatherers patiently explained everything they are doing, but this is typical behavior and -- in the next phrase I'm practicing law without a license -- doesn't violate misrepresentation laws, despite the claims of the AP. Signature gatherers -- who are paid by the signature -- typically carry all of the better paying petitions in a state on their clipboards, and love to get signatures on multiple measures. It is not the gatherers' job or responsiblity to explain what voters are signing. It's the responsibility of voters. The gentleman in the AP story could have simply taken the time to read each of the things he was signing. It is not too much to ask. Signature gatherers are there to collect signatures, not to protect you from yourself.

A  busy, busy day for blockbuster democracy... 10 items follow.

ARKANSAS RE-FILING: After the attorney general rejected the first version, an initiative to require proof of citizenship or legal status to receive public benefits has been refiled by its supporters. This measure appears headed for the November ballot. It creats a political dilemma in particular for Democrats, who continue to have a hold on Arkansas politics that they've lost in other Southern states. It also could complicate the efforts of Democratic presidential candidates, who would be almost certain to oppose it,  to win a state that may well be in play in a Democratic year. 

COLORADO HISTORY LESSON: The writer David Sirota goes deep -- very deep -- in explaining the history behind the current labor-business imbroglio that appears headed to the ballot.in Colorado. All the way to the Ludlow Massacre (he name-checks my Los Angeles Times colleague Scott Martelle's, whose book about that slaughter, Blood Passion, is an instant classic of Western history). Sirota sees Gov. Bill Ritter's efforts to find a compromise and head off ballot measures in a very dark, anti-union way. That may not be fair, but the piece is worth reading.

UPDATED 4/16 WITH NEW FIGURES: This should be the first of what I hope will become a regular feature on the blog: reports on the opaque California signature market, with actual figures on how much initiative sponsors are paying gatherers for each signature they collect. The per-signature amount is crucial information -- but little known -- because it determines the priorities of the individual signature gatherers. You pay more, they'll put your petition on top of their clipboards. High signature prices, however, also can be a sign that an initiative is weak. Sponsors have to pay more because their initiative has little time to qualify or involves a complicated subject that is hard to explain in a grocery store parking lot.

Here's my rundown on per-signature costs gleaned from a weekend of talking with signature gatherers in Southern California. I'm not specifying exactly where I talked to gatherers to protect their anonymity. I'd like to do this not only for California but also for other states. I'd love to hear from signature gatherers around the country.

I'll be out of pocket the rest of Thursday--in transit...

Ralph Nader's challenge to an Arizona law prohibiting non-residents from collecting signatures on presidential petitions has been scheduled for an April 15 hearing before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

RENEWABLE INITIATIVES: From a small paper in Missouri, a pretty good overview of renewable energy standards in different states, with some attention to those states that have imposed these by ballot initiative.

STILL NOTHING FROM  COLORADO MEETING: Rocky Mountain News says the governor's attempt to head off labor-business initiative war didn't go well. And here's more evidence that the ill will is building.

SAN DIEGO PORT: Opposition mounts to a San Diego ballot measure that could lead to commercial development inside that city's struggling port.

Here's a news release from the California Secretary of State of a very rare event: the conviction of a signature gatherer in San Joaquin County. The crime in this case? Attempting to register a fictitious voter. There are laws on signature gatherers, and several states are trying to regulate the petition trade. But it's dangerous ground because almost everything signature gatherers do is political speech in some form.