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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - '==Election Results==' to '==Election results==')
Line 3: Line 3:
 
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]].
 
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]].
  
==Election Results==
+
==Election results==
 
{{short outcome
 
{{short outcome
 
|title=Measure 26
 
|title=Measure 26

Revision as of 16:57, 2 August 2011

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.

Election results

Measure 26
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 921,606 75.35%
No301,41524.65%

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]

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

External Links

References