Arizona Payment of Petition Circulators Referendum, Petition R-01 (2018)

Arizona Payment of Petition Circulators Referendum
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Direct democracy measures
Status Not on the ballot
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens
List of Arizona measuresArizona Proposition 125Arizona Proposition 127Arizona Proposition 305Arizona Proposition 306Submit

The Arizona Payment of Petition Circulators Referendum was not on the ballot in Arizona as a veto referendum on November 6, 2018.

The measure was designed to repeal House Bill 2404 (HB 2404), which (1) prohibited paying initiative circulators according to the number of signatures collected; (2) made paying circulators on a per-signature basis a class 1 misdemeanor; and (3) increased the number of days that legal challenges to the registration of circulators can commence from five days to ten business days after signatures are filed. A yes vote on the referendum would have been to uphold HB 2404, while a no vote would have been to repeal HB 2404.

This measure, Petition R-01, was one of two referendums being circulated to overturn HB 2404. This one was sponsored by the committee Grassroots Citizens Concerned. The other referendum, Petition R-03, was circulated by Voters of Arizona.

Text of measure

Full text

HB 2404 amended Arizona Revised Statutes. The following underlined text was added by HB 2404, and struck-through text was deleted by HB 2404:

19-111.01. Text review; legislative council; recommendations A. At any time before filing an application for initiative petition or referendum petition and after filing a statement of organization pursuant to section 16-906, a political committee that intends to submit after a person or organization submits an application for initiative petition or referendum petition for a proposed law or constitutional amendment, a political committee that intends to support the measure or a political committee that intends to oppose the measure may submit a copy of the text of the proposed law, referral or constitutional amendment to the director of the legislative council. B. No later than thirty days after receipt of the text of the measure, the legislative council staff shall review the proposed measure. The legislative council staff shall limit its consideration to errors in the drafting of the measure, confusing, conflicting or inconsistent provisions within the measure and conflicts with other state laws and federal law and shall consider and may prepare recommendations to improve the text of the proposed measure. C. The person or organization proposing the law or constitutional amendment may accept, modify or reject any recommendations made by the legislative council staff regarding the text of the measure solely in its discretion. 19-118. Registered circulators; requirements; definition A. All circulators who are not residents of this state and, for statewide ballot measures only, all paid circulators must register as circulators with the secretary of state before circulating petitions pursuant to this title. The political committee that is circulating the petition shall collect and submit the registrations to the secretary of state. The secretary of state shall establish in the instructions and procedures manual issued pursuant to section 16-452 a procedure for registering circulators and shall publish on a website maintained by the secretary of state all information regarding circulators that is required pursuant to this section. The secretary of state shall disqualify all signatures collected by a circulator who fails to register pursuant to this subsection as provided for in section 19-121.01, subsection A. B. The registration required by subsection A of this section shall include the following provisions: 1. The circulator consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state in resolving any disputes concerning the circulation of petitions by that circulator. 2. The circulator shall designate an address in this state at which the circulator will accept service of process related to disputes concerning circulation of that circulator's petitions. Service of process is effected under this section by delivering a copy of the subpoena to that person individually or by leaving a copy of the subpoena at the address designated by the circulator with a person of suitable age. C. If a registered circulator is properly served with a subpoena to provide evidence in an action regarding circulation of petitions and fails to appear or produce documents as provided for in the subpoena, all signatures collected by that circulator are deemed invalid. The party serving the subpoena may request an order from the court directing the secretary of state to remove any signatures collected by the circulator as provided for in section 19-121.01, subsection A. D. Any person may challenge the lawful registration of circulators in the superior court of the county in which the circulator is registered. A challenge may not be commenced more than five ten business days after the date on which the petitions for which the circulator is required to be registered are filed with the secretary of state. The person challenging signatures may amend that complaint after the secretary of state has removed signatures and signature sheets as prescribed in section 19-121.01. An action pursuant to this section shall be advanced on the calendar and decided by the court as soon as possible. Either party may appeal to the supreme court within five calendar days after entry of judgment. The prevailing party in an action to challenge the registration of a circulator under this section is entitled to reasonable attorney fees. E. The removal or disqualification of any one or more circulators does not invalidate the random sample of signatures made pursuant to section 19-121.01, and the secretary of state shall not be required to conduct any additional random sampling of signatures. F. For the purposes of this title, "paid circulator”: 1. Means a natural person who receives monetary or other compensation that is based on the number of signatures obtained on a petition or on the number of petitions circulated that contain signatures. 2. Does not include a paid employee of any political committee organized pursuant to title 16, chapter 6, unless that employee's primary responsibility is circulating petitions to obtain signatures. 19-118.01. Signature collection; prohibited payments; violation; classification A. A person shall not pay or receive money or any other thing of value based on the number of signatures collected on a statewide initiative or referendum petition. Signatures that are obtained by a paid circulator who violates this section are void and shall not be counted in determining the legal sufficiency of the petition. B. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor. 19-122. Refusal of secretary of state to file petition or transmit facsimiles of signature sheets or affidavits of circulators; writ of mandamus; venue A. If the secretary of state refuses to accept and file a petition for the initiative or referendum, or proposal for a constitutional amendment that has been presented within the time prescribed, or if the secretary of state refuses to transmit the facsimiles of a signature sheet or sheets or affidavits of circulators to the county recorders for certification under section 19-121.01, the secretary of state shall provide the person who submitted the petition, proposal, signature sheet or affidavit with a written statement of the reason for the refusal. Within five calendar days after the refusal any citizen may apply to the superior court for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of state to file the petition or proposal or transmit the facsimiles, or for matters involving statewide initiatives or referenda or proposed constitutional amendments, the citizen may file a complaint with the county attorney or attorney general. The county attorney or attorney general may apply, within five calendar days after the complaint is made, to the superior court for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of state to file the petition or proposal or transmit the facsimiles. The action shall be advanced on the calendar and heard and decided by the court as soon as possible. Either party may appeal to the supreme court within five calendar days after entry of judgment by the superior court. The decision of the superior court may be stayed as prescribed by rules adopted by the supreme court. If the court finds that the petition is legally sufficient, the secretary of state shall then file it, with a certified copy of the judgment attached as of the date on which it was originally offered for filing in the secretary of state's office. B. The most current version of the general county register statewide voter registration database at the time of filing a court action challenging an initiative or referendum petition shall constitute the official record to be used to determine on a prima facie basis by the challenger that the signer of a petition was not registered to vote at the address given on the date of signing the petition. If the address of the signer given on the date of signing the petition is different from that on the most current version of the general county register, the county recorder shall examine the version of the general county register that was current on the date the signer signed the petition to determine the validity of the signature and to determine whether the person was eligible to sign the petition at the time of signing. This subsection does not preclude introducing into evidence a certified copy of the affidavit of registration of any signer dated before the signing of the petition if the affidavit is in the possession of the county recorder but has not yet been filed in the general county register. C. An action that contests the validity of an initiative or referendum measure based on the actions of the secretary of state or compliance with this chapter by any person may not be maintained in any court in this state except as prescribed by this section. A Any person may not maintain a separate action seeking may contest the validity of an initiative or referendum. If multiple actions are filed that contest the validity of an initiative or referendum, including actions filed pursuant to subsection a of this section, the separate actions shall be consolidated before the appropriate venue pursuant to subsection D of this section. In addition to contesting the validity of an initiative or referendum, any person may seek to enjoin the secretary of state or other officer from certifying or printing the official ballot for the election that will include the proposed initiative or referendum measure and any request to enjoin the certification or printing of the ballot shall be made as a part of an action filed pursuant to subsection A of this section. D. The superior court in Maricopa county shall have jurisdiction of actions relating to measures and amendments to be submitted to the electors of the state at large. With respect to actions relating to local and special measures for a county, special district or school district, the superior court in the county in which the district is located shall have jurisdiction. With respect to actions relating to local or special measures for a city or town, the superior court in the county in which the majority of the population of that city or town resides shall have jurisdiction. Legislative findings; purpose A. The legislature finds that: 1. Statewide initiative measures enact broad and sweeping changes to the laws of this state. 2. Protecting the integrity of the initiative process through the prevention of fraud is a significant state interest. 3. Arizona currently permits the practice of paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected. 4. "There is some consensus among scholars, practitioners, and even some courts that the practice of paying canvassers based on the number of signatures they collect is directly linked to high levels of fraud in the signature-gathering process." Jocelyn Friedrichs Benson, Election Fraud and the Initiative Process: A Study of the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, 34 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 889, 923 (2007). 5. To reduce fraud in the signature collecting process, states have enacted prohibitions on payment per signature. 6. "[A]vailable evidence – though limited – suggests that circulators paid by the hour [] have a higher validity rate than those paid by the signature." Affidavit of Richard J. Ellis, Ph.D. at ¶ 5, Prete v. Bradbury, No. 03-6357-AA, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28738 (D. Or. Feb. 18, 2004), aff'd, 438 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2006). B. Based on the findings provided in subsection A of this section, the legislature's purpose in adopting this act includes the following: 1. Prohibiting the specific practice of paying signature gatherers based on the number of collected signatures. 2. Clarifying who may bring an action to challenge the validity of an initiative or referendum and the time frame in which a challenge may be made. Severability If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

Sponsors of referendum

Grassroots Citizens Concerned, also known as #Refer2404, led the campaign in support of the referendum. Supporters of the referendum would have campaigned for a "No" vote at the election. The campaign opposed HB 2404 and targeted the bill for repeal. The group stated the following about the referendum campaign:

“

In March of 2017, the Arizona legislature passed a bill that sets the financial bar for initiatives and referendums higher than ever before. If we don't stop it, HB2404 will silence ordinary people by ensuring that only the most financially privileged people can place measures on the ballot.

”

Background

House Bill 2404 (2017) timeline

See also: Changes in 2017 to Arizona laws governing ballot measures

House Bill 2404 (HB 2404) was introduced into the Arizona State Legislature during the 2017 legislative session. Rep. Vince Leach (R-11) was the bill's lead sponsor. On February 9, 2017, both the House Government and Higher Education Committee and House Rules Committee voted to recommend passage of the bill. In both committees, the vote was 5 to 3 with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing the bill. The committees proposed amendments to the original bill, which the House adopted, to remove the following provisions: (a) require paid circulators to register with the state; (b) make certain disclosures; (c) complete a training program provided by the state; (d) pay a registration fee; (e) require initiative proponents to post bonds for paid signature gatherers ranging from $10,000 to $50,000; and (f) create an Initiative and Referendum Integrity Fund.

On February 23, 2017, the Arizona House of Representatives voted 35 to 24 with one member excused to pass HB 2404.

The Senate Judiciary Committee took up the bill on February 28, 2017. The committee recommend the bill's passage in a 4 to 3 vote along partisan lines. On March 22, 2017, the Arizona Senate adopted an amendment to HB 2404, replacing the legislative findings and purpose section of the bill. The Senate approved the bill on 17 to 13 on March 22, 2017. All Republicans voted to pass the bill. All Democrats voted against the bill.

Breakdown of Senate votes on HB 2404
Party Affiliation	Yes	No	Abstain	Total
Democrat	0	13	0	13
Republican	17	0	0	17
Total	17	13	0	30

As the Senate amended HB 2404, the House needed to concur with the changes. On March 23, 2017, the House passed the bill 34 to 22 with four members not voting. The final vote was 34 Republicans in favor and 22 Democrats against.

Breakdown of House votes on HB 2404
Party Affiliation	Yes	No	Abstain	Total
Democrat	0	22	3	25
Republican	34	0	1	35
Total	34	22	4	60

On March 23, 2017, Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed HB 2404 into law. Gov. Ducey said, "We live in a state where citizens have significant input into the policy-making process. That’s a good thing, and this tweak to the law helps ensure the integrity of ballot measures moving forward."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

In Arizona, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum to be certified for the ballot is equivalent to five percent of the votes cast for governor at the last gubernatorial election. For 2018 veto referendums, the number of valid signatures required was 75,321. Proponents of the referendum have until 90 days after the 2017 legislative session adjourns to collect signatures. As the 2017 legislative session adjourned on May 10, 2017, petitioners had until August 8, 2017, to collect 75,321 signatures.

Grassroots Citizens Concerned sponsored the filing of the veto referendum petition on March 30, 2017. Mike Shipley, a Libertarian candidate for the 9th Congressional District in 2016, was marked as the applicant for the petition.

As House Bill 2404 did not take effect until 90 days after the legislature adjourns in 2017, referendum proponents were permitted to use circulators and pay them per signature. If 75,321 or more signatures were verified, the enforcement of House Bill 2404 would have been put on hold until voters addressed the bill in 2018.

On August 8, 2017, Grassroots Citizens Concerned said 22,956 signatures were collected, about 50,000 short of the required amount. Therefore, the measure was not certified for the ballot.

See also

Suggest a link

• Arizona 2018 ballot measures
• 2018 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona
• Changes in 2017 to Arizona laws governing ballot measures