Signature Gatherers

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.

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.

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.