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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<div style="float:right; margin:0 0 1em 1em;">__TOC__</div>
 
'''Oregon Ballot Measure 26 (2002)''' is an [[initiated constitutional amendment]] that
 
'''Oregon Ballot Measure 26 (2002)''' is an [[initiated constitutional amendment]] that
prohibits [[chief petitioner]]s of [[initiative]] campaigns in [[Oregon]] from paying [[circulator|petition circulators]] on a per-signature basis either directly or indirectly.
+
prohibits [[chief petitioner]]s of [[initiative]] campaigns in [[Oregon]] from paying [[circulator|petition circulators]] on a [[pay-per-signature|per-signature basis]], either directly or indirectly.  
  
 +
This measure '''passed''' at the [[2002 ballot measures|November 2002 general election]] with 921,606 voters in favor, and 301,415 opposed.
  
==Official Ballot Title==
+
==Official ballot title==
 
''Prohibits Payment, Receipt Of Payment Based On The Number Of Initiative, Referendum Petition Signatures Obtained''<ref>[http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_reference=20020143..QSCYYY. Detailed information on this initiative from the Secretary of State]</ref>
 
''Prohibits Payment, Receipt Of Payment Based On The Number Of Initiative, Referendum Petition Signatures Obtained''<ref>[http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.record_detail?p_reference=20020143..QSCYYY. Detailed information on this initiative from the Secretary of State]</ref>
 
 
==Results==
 
This measure '''passed''' at the November 2002 General Election with 921,606 voters in favor, and 301,415 opposed.
 
  
 
==Support==
 
==Support==
'''Oregon AFL-CIO''', Oregon's Union Movement, and others supporters argued that the measure would prevent incentive for fraud or forgery when collecting petition signatures.<ref>[http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/02/measure_26_uphe.html ''Measure 26 Upheld by Ninth Circuit'', Oregon AFL-CIO's Statement, posted by Blue Oregon]</ref>
+
'''Oregon [[AFL-CIO]]''', [[Our Oregon]], and others argued that the measure would prevent incentive for fraud or forgery when collecting petition signatures.<ref>[http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/02/measure_26_uphe.html ''Measure 26 Upheld by Ninth Circuit'', Oregon AFL-CIO's Statement, posted by Blue Oregon]</ref>
 
+
  
 
==Opposition==
 
==Opposition==
 
Those opposed to the measure argued that paying-per-signature is the most efficient way to collect signatures and that the new law would violate free speech rights in the first amendment.  
 
Those opposed to the measure argued that paying-per-signature is the most efficient way to collect signatures and that the new law would violate free speech rights in the first amendment.  
  
 
+
==''Prete v. Bradbury''==
==Measure challenged==
+
  
 
In 2004, [[Barbara and Eugene Prete]] filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban on paying circulators per signature.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/0301.html#10 Ballot Access News Edited by Richard Winger, March 1 2004]</ref>  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 Ninth Circuit]] in the case of [[Prete v. Bradbury]] in 2006. The court of appeals upheld the lower court's ruling. <ref>[http://www.iandrinstitute.org/REPORT%202006-1%20Paid%20Petitioners.pdf ''Paid Petitioners after Prete'' by Andrew M. Gloger, I&R Institute, University of Southern California]</ref>
 
In 2004, [[Barbara and Eugene Prete]] filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban on paying circulators per signature.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/0301.html#10 Ballot Access News Edited by Richard Winger, March 1 2004]</ref>  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 Ninth Circuit]] in the case of [[Prete v. Bradbury]] in 2006. The court of appeals upheld the lower court's ruling. <ref>[http://www.iandrinstitute.org/REPORT%202006-1%20Paid%20Petitioners.pdf ''Paid Petitioners after Prete'' by Andrew M. Gloger, I&R Institute, University of Southern California]</ref>
Line 34: Line 30:
 
*[[Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon]]
 
*[[Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon]]
  
[[Category:Oregon]]
+
{{oregon}}
[[Category:Oregon ballot measures]]
+
[[Category:2002 ballot measures]]
+
 
+
[[Category:Oregon]]
+
 
[[Category:Oregon ballot measures]]
 
[[Category:Oregon ballot measures]]
 
[[Category:2002 ballot measures]]
 
[[Category:2002 ballot measures]]
 
[[Category:Pay-per-signature]]
 
[[Category:Pay-per-signature]]

Revision as of 16:35, 1 June 2008

Oregon Ballot Measure 26 (2002) is an initiated constitutional amendment that prohibits chief petitioners of initiative campaigns in Oregon from paying petition circulators on a per-signature basis, either directly or indirectly.

This measure passed at the November 2002 general election with 921,606 voters in favor, and 301,415 opposed.

Official ballot title

Prohibits Payment, Receipt Of Payment Based On The Number Of Initiative, Referendum Petition Signatures Obtained[1]

Support

Oregon AFL-CIO, Our Oregon, and others argued that the measure would prevent incentive for fraud or forgery when collecting petition signatures.[2]

Opposition

Those opposed to the measure argued that paying-per-signature is the most efficient way to collect signatures and that the new law would violate free speech rights in the first amendment.

Prete v. Bradbury

In 2004, Barbara and Eugene Prete filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban on paying circulators per signature.[3] 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 Ninth Circuit in the case of Prete v. Bradbury in 2006. The court of appeals upheld the lower court's ruling. [4]


References

  1. Detailed information on this initiative from the Secretary of State
  2. Measure 26 Upheld by Ninth Circuit, Oregon AFL-CIO's Statement, posted by Blue Oregon
  3. Ballot Access News Edited by Richard Winger, March 1 2004
  4. Paid Petitioners after Prete by Andrew M. Gloger, I&R Institute, University of Southern California

See also