Difference between revisions of "Pay-per-signature"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Relevant lawsuits)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
==Relevant lawsuits==
 
==Relevant lawsuits==
  
* [[Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters]]
+
* [[Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters]]. Federal court struck down Ohio's ban on pay-per-signature.
* [[On Our Terms '97 PAC v. Secretary of State of Maine]]
+
* [[On Our Terms '97 PAC v. Secretary of State of Maine]].  Federal court struck down Maine's ban.
* [[Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger]]
+
* [[Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger]].  Federal court upheld North Dakota's ban.
* [[LIMIT v. Maleng]]
+
* [[LIMIT v. Maleng]].  Federal court strikes down State of Washington's ban on pay-per-signature.
* [[Meyer v. Grant]]
+
* [[Meyer v. Grant]].  U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Colorado ban on paying circulators.
 
* [[Term Limits Leadership Council v. Clark]]
 
* [[Term Limits Leadership Council v. Clark]]
  

Revision as of 14:16, 31 May 2009

Ballot law
BallotLaw final.png
State laws
Initiative law
Recall law
Statutory changes
Court cases
Lawsuit news
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges
Laws governing
local ballot measures
Pay-per-signature is one way of compensating signature-gatherers who collect signatures to qualify candidates or ballot initiatives or recall elections for the ballot.

Several states have made it illegal to compensate petition circulators based on how many signatures they are able to collect on petitions. It is an active area of litigation.

Alaska Republicans move to ban

Alaska State Representatives Kyle Johansen (R-Ketchikan) and Charisse Millett (R-Anchorage) have introduced HB 36 in 2009 to make it illegal for initiative circulators to be paid on a per-signature basis. It would also make it illegal for initiative circulators to circulate more than one initiative at once.[1]

Arizona legislature may ban

The Arizona Reform the Initiative Process Amendment (2010) has been proposed as a reform of Arizona's laws. One of its provisions if enacted would ban signature-gatherers from getting paid by signature or page.

Colorado legislature bans

Gov. Bill Ritter signed Colorado House Bill 1326 (2009) on May 29, 2009. It forbids compensating circulators based on how many signatures they collect.

Prete v. Bradbury

Main article Prete v. Bradbury

Prete v. Bradbury is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury challenging Oregon's restrictions on paying petition circulators by the signature.

The outcome of the lawsuit was that U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, a Clinton appointee, upheld Oregon's ban on pay-per-signature on February 11, 2004.[2] The ban was one of the provisions of Oregon Ballot Measure 26.

Relevant lawsuits

References

  1. Alaska anti-initiative bill, January 19, 2009
  2. More lawsuit news Ballot Access News, March 1, 2004