Difference between revisions of "Oregon Prohibition of Payment Per Signature for Canvassers, Measure 26 (2002)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: '''Oregon Ballot Measure 26''' appeared on the November 5, 2002 ballot in Oregon as a proposed constitutional amendment. It passed with 921,606 voters in favor of it, and 301,4...)
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
Measure 26 prohibits Oregon [[chief petitioner]]s from paying [[circulator|petition circulators]] on a per-signature basis either directly or indirectly.
 
Measure 26 prohibits Oregon [[chief petitioner]]s from paying [[circulator|petition circulators]] on a per-signature basis either directly or indirectly.
  
The law was challenged in the case of [[Prete v. Bradbury]].
+
==Challenge to constitutionality==
 +
 
 +
[[Barbara and Eugene Prete]] filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban on paying circulators per signature.  Their lawsuit was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, a Clinton appointee, who upheld the ban.  The Pretes appealed Aiken's decision to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit]] in the case of [[Prete v. Bradbury]]. The court of appeals upheld the lower court's ruling.  
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==

Revision as of 14:37, 1 January 2008

Oregon Ballot Measure 26 appeared on the November 5, 2002 ballot in Oregon as a proposed constitutional amendment. It passed with 921,606 voters in favor of it, and 301,415 opposed to it.

Measure 26 prohibits Oregon chief petitioners from paying petition circulators on a per-signature basis either directly or indirectly.

Challenge to constitutionality

Barbara and Eugene Prete filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban on paying circulators per signature. Their lawsuit was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, a Clinton appointee, who upheld the ban. The Pretes appealed Aiken's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the case of Prete v. Bradbury. The court of appeals upheld the lower court's ruling.

External links