Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Badge requirements for ballot initiative signature gatherers
From Ballotpedia
A badge requirement is a rule that requires that people who collect signatures for ballot initiatives must communicate whether he or she is a paid or volunteer petition circulator. The badge requirements come in two main forms: in some states, circulators must wear physical badges, whereas in others, circulators must include this identifying information on petitions.
Twenty-six (26) states provide for an initiative or referendum process. Of those, 12 have badge requirements or similar identification requirements for petition circulators.
HIGHLIGHTS
Requirements by state
Of the 26 initiative and referendum states, 12 states have a badge-type requirement for signature gatherers:
- Seven states—Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wyoming—require petition forms to state whether the circulator is paid.
- Four states—Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Utah—require petition forms to disclose whether the circulator is being paid.
- One state—Oklahoma—requires a conspicuous notice to be displayed at any location where a person is collecting signatures.
States with badge requirements
The following table outlines the badge requirements for ballot initiative signature gatherers in each state that has a badge requirement:
| State | Year Adopted | Requirement | Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Requires paid and volunteer circulators to be identified as such on petition forms | Arizona Revised Statutes § 19-102 | |
| California | 1994 | Requires petitions to include a statement informing voters that the circulator could be a paid or volunteer, and that voters have the right to ask | California Election Code § 101 |
| Colorado | Requires volunteer circulators to wear a badge stating "volunteer circulator," and paid circulators to wear a badge stating "paid circulator" along with their employer’s name and phone number | Colorado Revised Statutes § 1-40-112 | |
| Florida | 2025 | Requires that circulators be identified on petition forms, including the circulator's name and address | Florida Statutes § 100.371(3)(d) |
| Idaho | 2024 | Requires paid circulators to wear badges, verbally communicate their paid status, and list their payor’s name and address on the petition form | Idaho Statutes § 34-1807 |
| Michigan | 2018 | Requires paid and volunteer circulators to be identified as such on petition forms | Michigan Compiled Laws § 168.482 |
| Montana | 2025 | Requires paid circulators to wear a badge and verbally disclose their first name, state of residence, and paid status | Montana State Statutes |
| Nebraska | Requires paid and volunteer circulators to be identified as such on petition forms | Nebraska Revised Statutes § 32-628(4) | |
| Oklahoma | 2025 | Requires petition circulators to display a notice while collecting signatures stating if they are paid and, if so, by whom | Oklahoma Statutes § 34-8 |
| Oregon | Requires paid circulator sheets to be a different color, include an explanation of the color, and state: “some circulators for this petition are being paid” | Oregon Revised Statutes § 250.045 and § 250.052 | |
| Utah | 2021 | Requires paid circulators to wear a badge that includes the petition title and payor's name | Utah Code § 20A-7-104 |
| Wyoming | Requires paid circulators to be identified as such on petition forms | Wyoming Statutes § 22-24-310 |
Legislation
2025
- Florida House Bill 1205: The legislation established a badge requirement for circulators, requiring that their name, address, and circulator number or barcode appear on the petitions they circulate, among other changes.[1]
- Montana House Bill 201: The legislation established a badge requirement for paid circulators. The badge must display the circulator’s first name and last initial, indicate that they are a paid signature gatherer, and include the name of their state of residence.[2]
- Oklahoma Senate Bill 1027: The legislation required petition circulators to display a clear notice while collecting signatures indicating whether they are being paid and who is paying them, among other changes.[3]
2024
- South Dakota Senate Bill 182: The bill amended and repealed sections of state law to align with court rulings that overturned the residency and badge requirements for petition circulators enacted in Senate Bill 180 of 2020.[4]
- Idaho Senate Bill 1377: This bill required badges for paid petition circulators; required circulators to verbally notify potential signers that they are being paid, and a disclosure to be printed on petitions.[5]
2021
- Utah House Bill 136: The legislation made several changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Utah, including a requirement that paid signature gatherers wear a visible badge while collecting signatures. The badge must include a unique ID number, the petition title, the phrase 'paid signature gatherer,' and the name of the entity paying the circulator.[6]
2020
- South Dakota Senate Bill 180: The legislation required paid circulators to provide their residential address, phone number, driver's license state, voter registration information, sex offender status, and other information, and SB 180 classified this information as public record. Under SB 180, signatures were considered void when a signature gatherer did not meet the registration requirements. SB 180 also required signature gatherers — paid or volunteer — to be residents of South Dakota for at least 30 days.[7]
2019
- California Assembly Bill 1451 (Vetoed): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed the bill on October 7, 2019. The legislation was designed to do the following:[9]
- require that a minimum of 10% of the signatures needed for an initiative or referendum petition be collected by unpaid volunteer circulators;
- prohibit paying circulators based on the number of signatures they collected and making this practice a misdemeanor;
- require petitions to include information indicating whether the circulator collecting the signatures was a paid worker or volunteer; and
- increase the number of days that elections officials have to verify signatures, among other changes.
- South Dakota House Bill 1094: In SD Voice v. Noem, the U.S. District Court for South Dakota ruled that HB 1094 was unconstitutional. The legislation was designed to make several changes to the laws governing petition circulators, including:
- requiring paid signature gatherers to register with the state, obtain a circulator identification number, and provide certain information, such as the circulator's physical address, email address, phone number, occupation, and driver's license and voter registration state;
- creating a $20 registration fee for paid petition circulators; and
- requiring signature gatherers to wear a badge that identifies the committee and ballot measure for which they are collecting signatures, as well as their paid or volunteer status, among other changes.
2018
- Michigan House Bill 6595: The legislation made changes to laws governing the initiative process in Michigan, including:[10]
- creating a distribution requirement requiring that no more than 15 percent of required signatures come from a given congressional district;
- requiring the Board of State Canvassers to officially determine whether an initiative petition is sufficient or insufficient no later than 100 days prior to the election;
- requiring initiative petitions to include a summary of the proposal that is no longer than 100 words;
- providing that petitions must say whether the circulator is a paid or volunteer signature gatherer; and
- requiring paid circulators to submit a signed affidavit, among other changes.
- South Dakota House Bill 1177: The legislation required initiative petition sheets to include the name, phone number, email address, and the paid or volunteer status of the signature gatherer. HB 1177 also required paid signature gatherers to include how much they're being paid.[11]
Lawsuits
The following is a selection of case law and litigation about badge requirements.
2021
- SD Voice vs. Noem (2023):
- On January 9, 2020, U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann ruled that House Bill 1094 (HB 1094), passed in 2019, violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
- HB 1094 was designed to require paid petition circulators to pre-register with the state and provide certain information; established a paid circulator registration fee of $20; and required petitioners to wear a badge identifying the committee and ballot measure and their paid or volunteer stats, among other changes. Judge Kornmann wrote that the bill’s definition of a petition circular was too broad and restricted free speech. He wrote, "These disclosure provisions place serious and draconian burdens on protected speech. While the state's interests in effective administration of the law and ensuring that its laws are followed are important, the state has ample means of doing so that would not chill speech.”[12]
- On February 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal. In the ruling, the court wrote, "Further, the district court held that the petition-circulator directory, in conjunction with the requirement to wear a badge displaying an identification number, failed constitutional scrutiny. The court specifically noted that these requirements—and the identification number in particular—violated the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. But SB 180 has tackled this issue too by eliminating the identification number from the badge".[13]
- On March 23, 2023, Gov. Kristi Noem (R) signed Senate Bill 113 (SB 113), which changed the signature deadline to the first Tuesday in May of a general election year.[14]
1999
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999): On January 12, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 vote that agreed with an earlier ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming that name, badge, and disclosure requirements were unlawful.[15]
- The plaintiff, American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., sued in federal court to overturn six provisions of Colorado law governing the initiative petition process on the grounds that the contested provisions violate the free speech guarantee in the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiff asked the court to overturn the provisions in Colorado law, including the requirement that petition circulators wear identification badges stating their names, their status as "VOLUNTEER" or "PAID," and if the latter, the name and telephone number of their employer.[15]
- When the plaintiffs entered into federal district court, that court struck down the badge requirement and portions of the disclosure requirements, but upheld the age, affidavit, and registration requirements, and the six-month limit on petition circulation. The plaintiffs appealed the district court decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth Circuit court held portions of the badge and disclosure requirements invalid as trenching unnecessarily and improperly on political expression.[15]
- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the Tenth Circuit Court. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion, saying, "While the affidavit reveals the name of the petition circulator and is a public record, it is tuned to the speaker’s interest as well as the State’s. Unlike a name badge worn at the time a circulator is soliciting signatures, the affidavit is separated from the moment the circulator speaks. As the Tenth Circuit explained, the name badge requirement 'forces circulators to reveal their identities at the same time they deliver their political message,'; it operates when reaction to the circulator’s message is immediate and 'may be the most intense, emotional, and unreasoned,' ibid. The affidavit, in contrast, does not expose the circulator to the risk of “heat of the moment” harassment ... In sum, we conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that Colorado’s current badge requirement discourages participation in the petition circulation process by forcing name identification without sufficient cause."[15]
Arguments
The following is a list of arguments about badge requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Support
Below is a selection of arguments that have been made in support of badge requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Claim: Voters have a right to know the paid or unpaid status of petition circulators
- The California Legislative Counsel, in support of California SB-448 in 2011, which would have required signature gatherers to wear a physical badge indicating that they are paid signature gatherers, said, "In our view the disclosure of the paid or unpaid status of the petition circulator at the time of circulation properly may be characterized as the least drastic means to accomplish the substantial state interest of enabling potential petition signers to assess the sincerity of circulators."Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title - The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, in support of California SB-448 in 2011, said, "After 100 years of direct democracy, Californians deserve a citizen initiative process that serves them. Unfortunately, special interests and some unscrupulous signature-gathering firms are able to take advantage of a broken system in need of fundamental reform. [This bill] would provide greater disclosure whether a petition is being circulated by volunteers or paid signature gatherers."Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title - Rep. Sam Hunt (D), who spoke in support of Washington HB 1169, said, "People have a right to know whether the person gathering signatures for an initiative or referendum petition is paid or volunteer. Because times have changed, the people should know whether the campaign is a true grass-roots effort."[16]
Oppose
Below is a selection of arguments that have been made in opposition to badge requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Claim: Physical badge requirement singles paid initiative signature gatherers
- California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), in his veto message for SB-448, said, "If it is acceptable to force paid signature gatherers to place identifying badges on their chests, will similar requirements soon be placed on paid campaign workers? I choose not to go down this slippery slope where the state decides what citizens must wear when petitioning their government."Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title
Claim: Physical badge requirement discourages participation in the petition circulation process
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her opinion given for Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation in 1999, said, "As the Tenth Circuit explained, the name badge requirement 'forces circulators to reveal their identities at the same time they deliver their political message,'; it operates when reaction to the circulator’s message is immediate and 'may be the most intense, emotional, and unreasoned,' ibid. The affidavit, in contrast, does not expose the circulator to the risk of “heat of the moment” harassment ... In sum, we conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that Colorado’s current badge requirement discourages participation in the petition circulation process by forcing name identification without sufficient cause."[15]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Florida State Senate, "House Bill 1205," accessed June 24, 2025
- ↑ Montana State Legislature, "HB 201," accessed May 29, 2025
- ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1027," accessed June 24, 2025
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "SB 182," accessed March 19, 2024
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "SB 1377," accessed April 17, 2024
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 136," accessed June 21, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 180," accessed June 20, 2023
- ↑ U.S. District Court of South Dakota, "Dakotans for Health v. Noem, January 10, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1451," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "House Bill 6595," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1177," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ United States District Court District of South Dakota Northern Division, "SD Voice v. Noem," January 9, 2020
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, "SD Voice v. Noem," February 16, 2021
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 113," accessed March 23, 2023
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Cornell Law School, "BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW," January 12, 1999
- ↑ Washington Legislature, "HB 1169," accessed September 20, 2023
