Pay-per-signature for ballot initiative signature gatherers
From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from Pay-per-signature)
Pay-per-signature is a method of compensating signature gatherers, also known as circulators, who collect signatures for ballot initiatives and veto referendums. The method involves paying signature gatherers at a rate based on the number of signatures collected.
There are 26 states that provide for an initiative or referendum process. Seventeen (17) of those states allowed campaigns to make payments to signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected. Nine (9) of those states prohibited campaigns from paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected.
HIGHLIGHTS
Requirements by state
Of the 26 initiative and referendum states, 17 states and the District of Columbia don't prohibit pay-per-signature policies, while nine states ban pay-per-signature policies.
The following map provides information on pay-per-signature laws by state:
Status of pay-per-signature by state
The following table outlines the laws regarding pay-per-signature policies in each state that provides for a citizen initiative and referendum process.
Legislation
2021
- Arkansas Senate Bill 614: The legislation enacted several changes to signature gathering requirements. SB 614 banned paying circulators based on the number of signatures gathered and required circulators to be state residents and citizens. The legislation also expanded the criteria for disqualifying individuals from serving as signature gatherers to include certain criminal offenses, such as sexual offenses, trespassing, vandalism, and theft.[1]
- California Senate Bill 660 (Vetoed): The legislation would have banned paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed SB 669 on October 5, 2021.[2]
- Utah House Bill 136: The legislation made several changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Utah, including:[3]
- banning pay-per-signature and instead requiring payment of signature gatherers to be based on time;
- enacting a badge requirement for paid petition circulators;
- requiring signature gatherers to present the entire text of initiatives and referendums to potential signers;
- requiring initiative or referendum petition sponsors to send an email to petition signers (who add their emails to the petition sheet) that informs the signers how to remove their signatures from the petition;
- requiring that a statement about tax increases be included on initiative petitions that increase taxes; and
- revising formatting requirements for initiative petitions, among other changes.
2020
- Florida Senate Bill 1794: The legislation made several changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Florida, including:[4]
- making signatures invalid after February 1 of even-numbered years each cycle instead of allowing signatures to remain valid for a period of two years;
- increasing the signature threshold to trigger a court review of an initiative petition from 10% to 25% of the total required signatures and in half of the state's congressional districts;
- requiring the Florida Supreme Court to review whether a proposed amendment is "facially invalid under the United States Constitution" in addition to existing requirements for reviewing the ballot title and reviewing the initiative for compliance with the state's single-subject rule;
- requiring petitioners to reimburse counties for the actual cost of verifying signatures, rather than the then-existing fee of 10 cents per signature or the actual cost, whichever is less.
- providing 60 days, rather than 30 days, for elections supervisors to validate signatures, except within 60 days from the deadline;
- allowing citizens to challenge the registration of a paid circulator; and
- requiring specific statements concerning the impact of the measure on the state budget (negative, positive, or indeterminate) to be included on the ballot, among other changes.
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:[5]
- 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.
- Florida House Bill 5: The legislation made several changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Florida, including:[6]
- require paid petition circulators to register with the state and provide an affidavit;
- prohibit paying petition circulators based on the number of signatures gathered and making a violation a misdemeanor offense;
- require petition forms to be submitted to elections officials within 30 days of being signed or receive a fine of $50 per petition sheet;
- require ballot language for a statewide initiative to contain an estimate of the impact on the state and local economy and effect on the state budget;
- require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote at a general election to approve local discretionary sales taxes.
- Maine Legislative Document 499: The legislation required signature gatherers to provide certain personal information and proof of voter registration with the state and file an affidavit that says the circulator has an understanding of the initiative process. The legislation also required organizations or individuals paying circulators to provide a list of paid circulators and details on payment methods, including whether pay-per-signature is utilized.[7]
2018
- Arizona House Bill 2121 (Vetoed): Gov. Doug Ducey (R) vetoed HB 2121 on April 20, 2018. The legislation would have changed the definition of paid circulator to include circulators who receive monetary or other compensation for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum petition, rather than circulators who are paid based on the number of signatures collected.[8]
- California Assembly Bill 1947 (Vetoed): Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed AB 1947 on September 18, 2018. The legislation would have banned paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected.[9]
- Colorado House Bill 1145: The legislation was designed to repeal state ballot initiative laws that courts ruled to be invalid. The repealed laws restricted payment of signature gatherers according to the number of signatures collected to 20 percent of their total compensation and required signature gatherers to be state residents.[10]
2017
- Arizona House Bill 2404 was designed to prohibit paying circulators according to the number of signatures collected; make paying circulators on a per-signature basis a class 1 misdemeanor; and increase 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.
- Two veto referendum signature petition drives targeting HB 2404 were started, but no signatures were submitted by the deadline.
- The introduced version of the bill was written to also require paid circulators to register with the state, make certain disclosures, complete a training program provided by the state, and pay a registration fee; require initiative proponents to post bonds for paid signature gatherers ranging from $10,000 to $50,000; and create an Initiative and Referendum Integrity Fund. These provisions were removed through amendments, however. Provisions similar to them were included in separate legislative efforts.
Lawsuits
The following is a selection of case law and litigation regarding pay-per-signature policies:
2023
- AZ Petition Partners v. Arizona: On June 21, 2023, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the state's ban on paying circulators based on the number of signatures collected is constitutional. The Legislature passed the ban as House Bill 2404 in 2017. Justice Clint Bolick wrote, "As we clarify here, the statute forbids only per-signature compensation, leaving other productivity-based compensation intact. Our clarification also means that the statute is not vague on its face, as permissible and prohibited conduct are clearly demarcated."[11]
- In November 2020, then-Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) charged AZ Petition Partners LLC with 50 misdemeanor counts for violating the state's ban on pay-per-signature. AZ Petition Partners paid signature gatherers based on their time and offered bonuses based on the number of signatures collected through incentive programs.[12] AZ Petition Partners LLC filed litigation against the state.
- On May 24, 2022, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that the state's ban on pay-per-signature was unconstitutional. Judge Michael J. Brown wrote, "The mere possibility of substantial fines for enterprises, along with fines and possible jail time for circulators, weighs in favor of finding that (the law) imposes a severe burden on Petitioner’s First Amendment rights."[13] The ruling was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
2022
- Pierce et al. v. Jacobsen et al.: On August 10, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Montana is allowed to ban paying circulators based on the number of signatures collected but cannot restrict circulators from out-of-state.[14]
- Regarding the restriction on out-of-state signature gatherers, Judge John Tunheim wrote, "[T]he residency requirement imposes an outright ban on a form of core political speech for all non-residents and necessarily diminishes the pool of (petition) circulators. We thus hold that the residency requirement here imposes a severe burden on the First Amendment rights of both out-of-state residents and instate proponents."[15]
- Regarding the ban on pay-per-signature, the opinion read that "the restriction rationally reduces the incentive to forge signatures and commit fraud" and "the state has established that an important regulatory interest is furthered by this restriction."[14]
2011
- 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[16]. The trial begun on December 21, 2010, in the District of Nebraska federal court[17]. The lawsuit alleges that age and residency restrictions added to petition circulators in 2008 violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution[17]. 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.[17]. On August 30, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska overturned the state's circulator and sponsor residency requirements and upheld the state's circulator age requirement and pay-per-signature ban. It was decided on the same day as Citizens in Charge v. Gale, which also challenged Nebraska's residency requirement.[18].
2010
- Ind. Ins. v. Colorado Secrerary of State: On June 11, 2010, 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 found that the provisions of HB 1326 that ban compensating petition circulators on a pay-per-signature basis are unconstitutional.[19]
2008
- Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters: On April 1, 2005, a case was filed in the United States District Court of Ohio seeking to overturn an Ohio law (ORC 3599.111) that forbade paying petitioners by the signature. The case was filed on April 1, 2005 in the United States District Court for Ohio. In her ruling on the case, issued on November 27, 2006, United States District Court Judge Susan Dlott found that Ohio's law was an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and enjoined the state from enforcing it. Dlott's decision was appealed by the Ohio Secretary of State to the Sixth Circuit. On March 5, 2008, a three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling to strike Ohio's law banning per-signature payments. On August 1, the Ohio Solicitor General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the decision. On November 17, the United States Supreme Court announced that it declined to hear Ohio's appeal.[20]
2004
- Prete v. Bradbury: 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. On February 11, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken upheld Oregon's ban on pay-per-signature, which was implemented when voters approved Oregon Ballot Measure 26.[21]
1994
- LIMIT v. Maleng. In 1993, a lawsuit was filed in the state of Washington, challenging that state's then-newly-enacted ban on paying campaign workers who collect signatures for each signature they collect. On October 17, 1994, federal judge Barbara Rothstein struck down the law. Her ruling was not appealed by the state.[22]
Arguments
The following is a list of claims and arguments about paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected.
Support
Below is a selection of arguments that have been made in support of paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected:
Claim: Banning pay-per-signature laws could discourage involvement in the initiative and referendum process
- In a letter opposing California SB 660, which would have banned pay-per-signature policies, the League of Women Voters of California said, "The League believes that impeding compensation for signatures gathered for initiative, referendum, or recall petitions could interfere with and have a chilling effect on citizens’ right of direct legislation through the initiative and referendum process. We are concerned SB 660 that it would promote inequity by driving up costs of the initiative process in a manner that favors wealthy interests. … This bill dramatically changes a long established democratic process with the rationale that it is necessary to protect against fraud. There is, however, no compelling evidence of significant fraud resulting from a per-signature payment system."[23]
Oppose
Below is a selection of arguments that have been made against paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected:
Claim: Pay-per-signature policies encourage fraudulent methods for signature gatherers
- In a letter supporting California SB 660, which would have banned pay-per-signature policies, the California Professional Firefighters stated said, "While it is currently a misdemeanor action to compensate someone directly for their signature on a petition, loopholes exist in current law that allow groups to compensate their employees, contractors, or volunteers in a manner that is directly related to the number of signatures that they obtain. This provides explicit incentive to those individuals to obtain as many signatures in their time working as possible, encouraging potentially dishonest or otherwise fraudulent methods to ensure a higher payout. California’s referendum system is too important to allow for financial motivation to influence what measures are placed before the voters, and for these reasons, we urge your support of this important measure."[23]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Arkansas State Legislature, "Senate Bill 614," accessed June 15, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 660," accessed June 19, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "House Bill 136," accessed June 21, 2023
- ↑ Florida State Senate, "Senate Bill 1794," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1451," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ Florida State Senate, "House Bill 5," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 499," accessed June 27, 2023
- ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "House Bill 2121," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1947," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 1145," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Arizona Supreme Court, "AZ Petition Partners v. Arizona," June 21, 2023
- ↑ Arizona Attorney General, "Phoenix Petition Signature Gathering Company Faces Criminal Charges for Alleged Illegal Payments to Prop 208 Initiative Circulators," November 16, 2020
- ↑ U.S. News, "Appeals Court Says Per-Signature Initiative Ban Illegal," May 24, 2023
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Pierce et al. v. Jacobsen et al., August 10, 2022
- ↑ Helena Independent Record, "Appeals court allows out-of-state signature gathers in Montana," August 10, 2022
- ↑ Citizens in Charge Foundation, "Second Lawsuit in Three Weeks Challenges Nebraska Petition Restrictions"
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Ballotpedia staff writer, "Email correspondence with Domina Law Firm," December 19, 2010]
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "Trial Set for Nebraska Case on Residency Requirement for Circulators, Other Issues," December 20, 2010
- ↑ Text of Judge Brimmer's 2010 decision in Independence Institute v. Colorado Secretary of State
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Ohio’s Appeal on Paying Circulators per Signature," November 17, 2008
- ↑ More lawsuit news Ballot Access News, March 1, 2004
- ↑ Justia U.S. Law, "Limit v. Maleng, 874 F. Supp. 1138 (W.D. Wash. 1994)," October 17, 1994
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 California State Legislature, "SB-660," accessed September 21, 2023
