Difference between revisions of "Pay-per-signature"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "therefor" to "therefore")
m (Text replace - ""," to ","")
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{law}}{{TOCnestright}}'''Pay-per-signature''' is one way of compensating [[circulator|signature-gatherers]] who collect signatures to qualify candidates or [[initiative|ballot initiatives]] or [[recall campaigns|recall elections]] for the ballot.
 
{{law}}{{TOCnestright}}'''Pay-per-signature''' is one way of compensating [[circulator|signature-gatherers]] who collect signatures to qualify candidates or [[initiative|ballot initiatives]] or [[recall campaigns|recall elections]] for the ballot.
  
In 2008-2009, several states -- including Colorado, Montana and Nebraska -- 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 with a federal judge issuing a preliminary injunction in June 2010 against the new Colorado law ([[Colorado House Bill 1326 (2009)|HB 1326]]) in a lawsuit that says the law's ban on pay-per-signature violates the U.S. Constitution.<ref>[http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_15083067 ''The Denver Post'' "Think-tank chief challenges Colorado's petition-gathering rules", May 14, 2010]</ref>
+
In 2008-2009, several states -- including Colorado, Montana and Nebraska -- 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 with a federal judge issuing a preliminary injunction in June 2010 against the new Colorado law ([[Colorado House Bill 1326 (2009)|HB 1326]]) in a lawsuit that says the law's ban on pay-per-signature violates the U.S. Constitution.<ref>[http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_15083067 ''The Denver Post'' "Think-tank chief challenges Colorado's petition-gathering rules," May 14, 2010]</ref>
  
 
==Bans: For and against==
 
==Bans: For and against==
Line 13: Line 13:
 
Those who believe that initiative sponsors ought to be able to pay circulators by the signature advance three main claims:
 
Those who believe that initiative sponsors ought to be able to pay circulators by the signature advance three main claims:
  
* Circulators who are paid by the signature do not have higher rates of fraud than those who are paid by the hour, or who are volunteers.  Daniel Smith, a professor at the University of Florida, wrote a study in 2008 which concluded "there is no clear pattern demonstrating that paying for signatures increases invalid rates" over volunteer efforts.<ref name=dp>[http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15112507?source=bb ''Denver Post'', "Heaping burdens on petitions", May 19, 2010]</ref>
+
* Circulators who are paid by the signature do not have higher rates of fraud than those who are paid by the hour, or who are volunteers.  Daniel Smith, a professor at the University of Florida, wrote a study in 2008 which concluded "there is no clear pattern demonstrating that paying for signatures increases invalid rates" over volunteer efforts.<ref name=dp>[http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15112507?source=bb ''Denver Post'', "Heaping burdens on petitions," May 19, 2010]</ref>
  
 
* When initiative sponsors are forbidden by the government to pay circulators on a per-signature basis, petition drives become more expensive.  Mason Tvert of SAFER, a pro-marijuana-rights organization, says that after [[Colorado House Bill 1326 (2009)|HB 1326]] was enacted in Colorado in 2009, "The cost of qualifying a measure for the ballot has increased dramatically as a result. I have been quoted about $3.50 per signature for this year, as compared to $1.50 last year."<ref name=dp />   
 
* When initiative sponsors are forbidden by the government to pay circulators on a per-signature basis, petition drives become more expensive.  Mason Tvert of SAFER, a pro-marijuana-rights organization, says that after [[Colorado House Bill 1326 (2009)|HB 1326]] was enacted in Colorado in 2009, "The cost of qualifying a measure for the ballot has increased dramatically as a result. I have been quoted about $3.50 per signature for this year, as compared to $1.50 last year."<ref name=dp />   
Line 19: Line 19:
 
* When state legislatures enact laws that make petition drives more expensive, they are chipping away at the right of initiative.<ref name=dp />
 
* When state legislatures enact laws that make petition drives more expensive, they are chipping away at the right of initiative.<ref name=dp />
  
* Such laws are constitutionally suspect under the First Amendment because they drive up the cost of collecting signatures and thereforee cut into core First Amendment rights.<ref>[http://facethestate.com/peter-blake/18775-ballot-initiative-promoters-can-lose-even-when-they-win ''Face the State'', "Ballot initiative promoters can lose even when they win", May 27, 2010]</ref>
+
* Such laws are constitutionally suspect under the First Amendment because they drive up the cost of collecting signatures and therefore cut into core First Amendment rights.<ref>[http://facethestate.com/peter-blake/18775-ballot-initiative-promoters-can-lose-even-when-they-win ''Face the State'', "Ballot initiative promoters can lose even when they win," May 27, 2010]</ref>
  
 
==State legislation==
 
==State legislation==
Line 33: Line 33:
 
===California, proposed ban===
 
===California, proposed ban===
  
* [[California Senate Bill 34 (2009)|Senate Bill 34]], sponsored by Democrat [[Ellen M. Corbett]] and co-sponsored by [[Mark DeSaulnier]] and [[Dean Florez]], would have made it illegal to pay initiative circulators on a pay-per-signature basis.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/07/06/california-legislative-hearing-on-bill-to-ban-paying-circulators-per-signature/ ''Ballot Access News'', "California Legislative Hearing on Bill to Ban Paying Circulators Per Signature", July 6, 2009]</ref>,<ref>[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_34_bill_20090715_status.html Text of SB 34]</ref>  The [[California State Senate]] passed SB 34, but the weekend of October 10-11, 2009, Gov. [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] vetoed it.<ref name=jill>[http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/politics/arnold-vetos-initiative-ban-a/ ''Los Angeles Weekly'', "Arnold vetoes initiative ban: Sleazy effort by California legislature to hamstring signature-gathering", October 12, 2009]</ref>
+
* [[California Senate Bill 34 (2009)|Senate Bill 34]], sponsored by Democrat [[Ellen M. Corbett]] and co-sponsored by [[Mark DeSaulnier]] and [[Dean Florez]], would have made it illegal to pay initiative circulators on a pay-per-signature basis.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/07/06/california-legislative-hearing-on-bill-to-ban-paying-circulators-per-signature/ ''Ballot Access News'', "California Legislative Hearing on Bill to Ban Paying Circulators Per Signature," July 6, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_34_bill_20090715_status.html Text of SB 34]</ref>  The [[California State Senate]] passed SB 34, but the weekend of October 10-11, 2009, Gov. [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] vetoed it.<ref name=jill>[http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/politics/arnold-vetos-initiative-ban-a/ ''Los Angeles Weekly'', "Arnold vetoes initiative ban: Sleazy effort by California legislature to hamstring signature-gathering," October 12, 2009]</ref>
  
On November 11, 2009 [[Citizens in Charge Foundation]] awarded Gov. Schwarzenegger their November 2009 John Lilburne Award for protecting the initiative and referendum process by vetoing SB 34 along with other attacks on initiative rights. <ref>[http://www.citizensincharge.org/press-releases/governor-arnold-schwarzenegger-honored-with-november-lilburne-award ''Citizens in Charge Foundation'', " Governor Schwarzenegger Honored with November Lilburne Award"]</ref>
+
On November 11, 2009 [[Citizens in Charge Foundation]] awarded Gov. Schwarzenegger their November 2009 John Lilburne Award for protecting the initiative and referendum process by vetoing SB 34 along with other attacks on initiative rights.<ref>[http://www.citizensincharge.org/press-releases/governor-arnold-schwarzenegger-honored-with-november-lilburne-award ''Citizens in Charge Foundation'', " Governor Schwarzenegger Honored with November Lilburne Award"]</ref>
  
 
===Colorado 2009 ban===
 
===Colorado 2009 ban===
Line 49: Line 49:
 
===Reduced Attempts to Restrict Compensation===
 
===Reduced Attempts to Restrict Compensation===
  
In March of 2010, Brandon W. Holmes at [[Citizens in Charge Foundation]] noted that while in 2009 eight states attempted to ban pay-per-signature, only one state - Missouri - has attempted to do so in 2010. Holmes suggests that pro-petitioning rights activism has made legislators less likely to propose bans. <ref>[http://www.citizensincharge.org/blog/brandon/payment-per-signature-are-legislators-getting-the-message ''Citizens in Charge Foundation'', "Payment-Per-Signature: Are Legislators Getting the Message?"]</ref>
+
In March of 2010, Brandon W. Holmes at [[Citizens in Charge Foundation]] noted that while in 2009 eight states attempted to ban pay-per-signature, only one state - Missouri - has attempted to do so in 2010. Holmes suggests that pro-petitioning rights activism has made legislators less likely to propose bans.<ref>[http://www.citizensincharge.org/blog/brandon/payment-per-signature-are-legislators-getting-the-message ''Citizens in Charge Foundation'', "Payment-Per-Signature: Are Legislators Getting the Message?"]</ref>
  
 
==Litigation==
 
==Litigation==
Line 69: Line 69:
 
===Bernbeck v. Gale===
 
===Bernbeck v. Gale===
 
:: ''See also: [[Bernbeck v. Gale]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[Bernbeck v. Gale]]''
On January 5, 2010 Nebraska petition rights activist Kent Bernbeck filed a lawsuit, ''Bernbeck v. Gale'' in federal district court challenging Nebraska's ban on pay-per-signature <ref>[http://www.citizensincharge.org/blog/brandon/second-lawsuit-in-three-weeks-challenges-nebraska-petition-restrictions ''Citizens in Charge Foundation'', "Second Lawsuit in Three Weeks Challenges Nebraska Petition Restrictions"]</ref>.  The trial begun on December 21, 2010, in the [[judgepedia:District of Nebraska|District of Nebraska]] federal court<ref name="ne">[Confirmed via email in a official statement received from Domina Law Firm on December 19, 2010]</ref>.  The lawsuit alleges that age and residency restrictions added to petition circulators in 2008 violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution<ref name="ne" />.  A petition for a new pool slide in Stanton, Nebraska was denied as John Bernebeck's brother and daughter did not meet the requirements for being a legal circulator.  Bernbeck's daughter was under the age of 18 while his brother was a resident of the State of [[Nevada]]<ref name="ne" />.
+
On January 5, 2010 Nebraska petition rights activist Kent Bernbeck filed a lawsuit, ''Bernbeck v. Gale'' in federal district court challenging Nebraska's ban on pay-per-signature<ref>[http://www.citizensincharge.org/blog/brandon/second-lawsuit-in-three-weeks-challenges-nebraska-petition-restrictions ''Citizens in Charge Foundation'', "Second Lawsuit in Three Weeks Challenges Nebraska Petition Restrictions"]</ref>.  The trial begun on December 21, 2010, in the [[judgepedia:District of Nebraska|District of Nebraska]] federal court<ref name="ne">[Confirmed via email in a official statement received from Domina Law Firm on December 19, 2010]</ref>.  The lawsuit alleges that age and residency restrictions added to petition circulators in 2008 violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution<ref name="ne" />.  A petition for a new pool slide in Stanton, Nebraska was denied as John Bernebeck's brother and daughter did not meet the requirements for being a legal circulator.  Bernbeck's daughter was under the age of 18 while his brother was a resident of the State of [[Nevada]]<ref name="ne" />.
  
In a separate case, the [[Citizens in Charge Foundation]] sued [[Nebraska Secretary of State]] [[John Gale]] on the out-of-state petition circulator ban along with the county-level [[distribution requirement]] for non-presidential independent candidates in 2010.  The outcome of the case is pending<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/12/20/trial-set-for-nebraska-case-on-residency-requirement-for-circulators-other-issues/ ''Ballot Access News'' "Trial Set for Nebraska Case on Residency Requirement for Circulators, Other Issues", December 20, 2010]</ref>.
+
In a separate case, the [[Citizens in Charge Foundation]] sued [[Nebraska Secretary of State]] [[John Gale]] on the out-of-state petition circulator ban along with the county-level [[distribution requirement]] for non-presidential independent candidates in 2010.  The outcome of the case is pending<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/12/20/trial-set-for-nebraska-case-on-residency-requirement-for-circulators-other-issues/ ''Ballot Access News'' "Trial Set for Nebraska Case on Residency Requirement for Circulators, Other Issues," December 20, 2010]</ref>.
  
 
===Other lawsuits===
 
===Other lawsuits===
Line 85: Line 85:
 
==Pros and cons==
 
==Pros and cons==
  
Jill Stewart, a reporter at LA Weekly, referred to a bill banning pay-per-signature passed in by [[California State Senate]] in 2009 (but vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger) as "a blatant effort by legislators, working on behalf of huge special interests including Big Pharma, Big Labor and Big Business, to stop environmental groups, anti-tax groups and others from gathering the 450,000 to 700,000 signatures required to place an initiative, referendum or recall on the statewide ballot."<ref name=jill/> Stewart also used the phrase "Under the false guise of 'reform'", suggesting that the reform is a [[pseudo-reforms of the ballot initiative process|pseudo-reform]].
+
Jill Stewart, a reporter at LA Weekly, referred to a bill banning pay-per-signature passed in by [[California State Senate]] in 2009 (but vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger) as "a blatant effort by legislators, working on behalf of huge special interests including Big Pharma, Big Labor and Big Business, to stop environmental groups, anti-tax groups and others from gathering the 450,000 to 700,000 signatures required to place an initiative, referendum or recall on the statewide ballot."<ref name=jill/> Stewart also used the phrase "Under the false guise of 'reform'," suggesting that the reform is a [[pseudo-reforms of the ballot initiative process|pseudo-reform]].
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 08:01, 21 March 2014

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.

In 2008-2009, several states -- including Colorado, Montana and Nebraska -- 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 with a federal judge issuing a preliminary injunction in June 2010 against the new Colorado law (HB 1326) in a lawsuit that says the law's ban on pay-per-signature violates the U.S. Constitution.[1]

Bans: For and against

In favor

Those who believe it should be illegal to pay a circulator by the signature generally say that they think that there will be more fraud in the signature-gathering process when circulators have a financial incentive to turn in more signatures.

Against

Those who believe that initiative sponsors ought to be able to pay circulators by the signature advance three main claims:

  • Circulators who are paid by the signature do not have higher rates of fraud than those who are paid by the hour, or who are volunteers. Daniel Smith, a professor at the University of Florida, wrote a study in 2008 which concluded "there is no clear pattern demonstrating that paying for signatures increases invalid rates" over volunteer efforts.[2]
  • When initiative sponsors are forbidden by the government to pay circulators on a per-signature basis, petition drives become more expensive. Mason Tvert of SAFER, a pro-marijuana-rights organization, says that after HB 1326 was enacted in Colorado in 2009, "The cost of qualifying a measure for the ballot has increased dramatically as a result. I have been quoted about $3.50 per signature for this year, as compared to $1.50 last year."[2]
  • When state legislatures enact laws that make petition drives more expensive, they are chipping away at the right of initiative.[2]
  • Such laws are constitutionally suspect under the First Amendment because they drive up the cost of collecting signatures and therefore cut into core First Amendment rights.[3]

State legislation

Alaska Republicans attempt 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.[4]

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.

California, proposed ban

On November 11, 2009 Citizens in Charge Foundation awarded Gov. Schwarzenegger their November 2009 John Lilburne Award for protecting the initiative and referendum process by vetoing SB 34 along with other attacks on initiative rights.[8]

Colorado 2009 ban

Gov. Bill Ritter signed Colorado House Bill 1326 (2009) on May 29, 2009. It forbids compensating circulators based on how many signatures they collect. Of eight states that tried to enact bans in 2009, Colorado's was the only one that succeeded.

Oregon 2002 ban

In 2002, Oregon Ballot Measure 26 was approved by popular vote. It forbid initiative sponsors from paying petitioners on a per-signature basis. This ban on pay-per-signature was upheld in Prete v. Bradbury, a ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court. Oregon Constitutional Article IV §1b reads:

"It shall be unlawful to pay or receive money or other thing of value based on the number of signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition. Nothing herein prohibits payment for signature gathering which is not based, either directly or indirectly, on the number of signatures obtained."[9]

Reduced Attempts to Restrict Compensation

In March of 2010, Brandon W. Holmes at Citizens in Charge Foundation noted that while in 2009 eight states attempted to ban pay-per-signature, only one state - Missouri - has attempted to do so in 2010. Holmes suggests that pro-petitioning rights activism has made legislators less likely to propose bans.[10]

Litigation

Independence Institute v. Colorado Secretary of State

See also: Independence Institute v. Colorado Secretary of State

On Friday, June 11, federal district judge Philip Brimmer issued a 39-page preliminary injunction forbidding the state of Colorado from enforcing several key provisions of Colorado House Bill 1326 (2009). Judge Brimmer's order, in particular, found that the provisions of HB 1326 that ban compensating petition circulators on a pay-per-signature basis are unconstitutional.[11]

Prete v. Bradbury

See also: 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.[12] The ban was one of the provisions of Oregon Ballot Measure 26.

Bernbeck v. Gale

See also: Bernbeck v. Gale

On January 5, 2010 Nebraska petition rights activist Kent Bernbeck filed a lawsuit, Bernbeck v. Gale in federal district court challenging Nebraska's ban on pay-per-signature[13]. The trial begun on December 21, 2010, in the District of Nebraska federal court[14]. The lawsuit alleges that age and residency restrictions added to petition circulators in 2008 violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution[14]. A petition for a new pool slide in Stanton, Nebraska was denied as John Bernebeck's brother and daughter did not meet the requirements for being a legal circulator. Bernbeck's daughter was under the age of 18 while his brother was a resident of the State of Nevada[14].

In a separate case, the Citizens in Charge Foundation sued Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale on the out-of-state petition circulator ban along with the county-level distribution requirement for non-presidential independent candidates in 2010. The outcome of the case is pending[15].

Other lawsuits

Pros and cons

Jill Stewart, a reporter at LA Weekly, referred to a bill banning pay-per-signature passed in by California State Senate in 2009 (but vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger) as "a blatant effort by legislators, working on behalf of huge special interests including Big Pharma, Big Labor and Big Business, to stop environmental groups, anti-tax groups and others from gathering the 450,000 to 700,000 signatures required to place an initiative, referendum or recall on the statewide ballot."[7] Stewart also used the phrase "Under the false guise of 'reform'," suggesting that the reform is a pseudo-reform.

References