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. 

A Nebraska businessman says that if the legislature won't reduce the number of signatures required to qualify a ballot initiative, he'll put an initiative on the ballot to do that.

Exhibit A is Nevada, where a bill would create a distribution requirement for signature gathering. That is, an initiative sponsor would have to get signatures equal to 10 percent of the vote in each of the state's 42 Assembly districts. That would effectively end ballot initiatives in the state. Such a process would be far too expensive and time-consuming for anyone but the wealthiest of the wealthy.

The initiative process badly needs reform. But a "reform" that merely adds unreasonable signature gathering requirements isn't worthy of the name. Yes, it perhaps should be harder to pass initiatives. But the focus should be on giving voters better choices, bringing the legislature into the process (in a way that improves voter choice but doesn't block voter preference), and fighting fraud in signature gathering. Nevada should look at adding the legislative counter proposal to its initiative process, making initiative petitions public as a fraud prevention measure, and improving the information it provides voters. That's real reform.

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.

The most prominent member of the Oklahoma Three, now freed, speaks out on the experience of being charged for the crime of trying to qualify an initiative for the ballot. Via This Is Common Sense.

I think it's safe to call this a trend: there is momentum, across the country, for putting new restrictions on the ballot initiative process. In Oregon, top state officials are trying to clamp down on the number of initiatives. The same is true in Arizona.

Now comes the Missouri legislature, where bills have been introduced to require a 60 percent vote to pass an initiative -- and to raise signature requirements for qualifying measures. The super-majority requirement, if adopted (and Missouri came close to adoping limits on the process last year), would almost certainly to reduce the number of initiaties on the ballot. The signature requirement's impact would be different: it probably would merely add to the costs of qualifying initiatives, ensuring that only the  wealthiest people and interest groups can sponsor measures. In California, I've supported raising initiative signature requirements -- but only as part of an effort to reduce signature requirements for referenda. The Missouri bills seem directed at denying the public access to the ballot. More details on the Missouri legislation via Ballot Access News.