Petition blocking

Petition blocking refers to organized efforts to prevent citizen-initiated measures or candidates from collecting sufficient signatures to meet ballot access requirements. Actions related to petition blocking can take various forms, including physical blockages, legal complaints and lawsuits, and administrative actions.

Physicial

Physical petition blocking occurs when a person opposed to a petition interferes with the petition circulator's ability to solicit signatures for political purposes. Some of these efforts have been called decline to sign campaigns.

The following are examples of allegations of physical petition blocking:

• California (2008): A supporter of four veto referendum challenging the state's tribal gaming compacts reported, "Standing outside my neighborhood grocery store, a signature gatherer was inviting voters to sign the referendum petitions. That’s when I saw him, one large man, slowly pacing back and forth in front of the table, literally blocking people from seeing what the petitions were actually about. Moments later, he verbally challenged the signature gatherer, questioning if he even had the right to gather signatures. I learned, the man putting himself between voters and petitions was only 'doing his job.' Those Big 4 tribes, with the new compacts, have hired an army of “Signature Blockers” to try and stop you from reading and signing the petition to place those unfair compacts on the ballot and ultimately stop you from voting on this issue."

• Nevada (2006): Proponents of an initiative filed a lawsuit against Nevadans for Nevada in June 2006 alleging that paid petition blockers had "swarm(ed) around signature-gatherers," "yell(ed) and grabb(ed) clipboards" and "pour(ed) a can of soda on a petition."

• Ohio (2019): On September 10, 2019, Harold Chung was collecting signatures for the Ohio Surcharges for Nuclear, Coal, and Solar Subsidies and Decrease to Renewable Standards Referendum. He reported to police that he was shoved while circulating petitions by a person that he believed was hired by opponents. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that the group Generation Now hired "FieldWorks to monitor signature collectors and offer a different viewpoint – sometimes known as "blockers." Generation Now spokesman Curt Steiner said he didn't know whether the person who committed the alleged assault worked for FieldWorks.

Financial

Financial petition blocking occurs when opponents of a ballot measure or candidate use financial tactics, such as financial incentives for signature gatherers to forgo collection or retaining petition collection companies so that supporters cannot use them.

• Ohio (2019): On July 16, 2020, Ohio Speaker of the House Larry Householder was arrested on federal racketeering charges related to House Bill 6, which opponents attempted to place on the ballot as a veto referendum. The charges outlined instances of alleged petition blocking against the veto referendum.
  • The federal charges stated that Neil [Clark], who was also charged, “explained, ‘so we have to go out on the corners and buy out their people every day.’ …When questioned about the logistics of the operation, Clark was very coy, but explained that they have 235 spotters in the field and that the spotters call and say people are here and then others go buy them off. Clark continued, ‘if we knock off 25 people, collecting signatures, it virtually wipes them out in the next 20 days…’ One specific allegation involved a signature gatherer being offered $2,500 and airplane fare to leave Ohio.
  • The federal charges stated that Generation Now “subverted the Ballot Campaign by hiring signature collection firms in an effort to conflict them from working for the Ballot Campaign. Bank records show that between July 23, 2019 and July 30, 2019, Generation Now spent over $549,250 retaining the services of national signature collection firms to defeat the ballot initiative. … “[Clark] repeated that he had ‘hired them to not work.’ Clark continued, explaining that he had hired 15 companies nationwide—nine of the biggest ones…”

• Florida (2021): Politico reported on November 29, 2021, that the Seminole Tribe of Florida "is paying petition gathering firms to not work in Florida during the 2022 midterms as part of an effort to block rival proposed gaming constitutional amendments — a strategy that also includes running a separate informal signature gathering operation and hiring workers that interfere with other petition gatherers." Seminole spokesperson Gary Bitner said the tribe "assembled the best team of political consultants in the country [and is] currently engaged to oppose multiple outside interests that have initially invested a combined $60 million in PAC money to hire more than a thousand people to fight the Tribe’s success." Faten Alkhulifi, regional director at Advanced Micro Targeting, said, "I have never seen it this bad. I have seen blockers before, but not like this. It makes these canvassers fear for their safety. I’ve seen people about to sign, then they end up walking away, sometimes scared." Rasheida Smith, CEO of Dunton Consulting, the signature gathering company for the casino gaming expansion initiative, said 32 members of her signature gathering team took "buyouts from the Seminole-linked firms in the past two days alone." Smith said, "Over the last 72 hours there has really been a big uptick, they are starting to use canvassers to co-opt other canvassers. They are super aggressive. Have been following them, tracking them to their places of residence, which are hotels, standing outside. We literally had one smack a clipboard out of the canvasser's hands the other day." Politico also reported that "As part of the effort, the Seminole Tribe of Florida has also been paying to circulate a separate petition that it claims supports the Seminole’s compact and new revenue for Florida. That effort, known as a plebiscite, is not tied to any specific measure being proposed for the 2022 ballot, but asks things like a signer’s name and address. The Seminole Tribe of Florida says the plebiscite is about 'education.' But supporters of the ballot measure argue it muddies the waters, making people think they have already signed a petition in support of one of the two ballot measures, when in reality they have signed a piece of paper not associated with any official campaign." Zachery Herrington, state director of Advanced Micro Targeting, said, "That’s the thing, when we come and ask someone to sign a petition saying it will increase funding for local schools, we hear them tell our gatherers that they have already signed. It’s totally confusing, as it’s designed to be."

Legal

Legal petition blocking occurs when opponents of a ballot measure or candidate use legal tactics, such as lawsuits and complaints, to block ballot access.

The following are examples of allegations of legal petition blocking:

• In Nader v. DNC, Ralph Nader argued that the Ballot Project wrote five FEC complaints against his ballot access efforts. He alleged that these complaints were filed not because those who filed them had an underlying belief in the merit of the complaints, but as a tactic to increase Nader's legal costs and campaign team's management time.

Administrative

Administrative petition blocking occurs when a government official who is responsible for authorizing a campaign to collect signatures or verifying signatures takes action to hinder the process for political reasons.

The following are examples of allegations of administrative petition blocking:

• Missouri (2019): In 2019, the Missouri State Legislature passed House Bill 126 (HB 126), which included an eight-week abortion ban, among other provisions. Sara Baker, legislative director for the ACLU of Missouri, filed a petition for a veto referendum against HB 126. Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) rejected the filed referendum petitions. He said the targeted legislation included an emergency clause, which caused a provision of the bill to take effect immediately. Proponents of the veto referendum claimed he did so for political reasons. On July 8, 2019, the Missouri Court of Appeals ordered Ashcroft to allow a signature drive for the referendum. He certified the petition for signature gathering on August 14, which was 14 days before the signature drive deadline. The ACLU announced that the campaign was abandoning the petition effort because there was not enough time to collect the required signatures before the submission deadline. Robin Utz, treasurer of the campaign, alleged, "He dragged his feet for 78 days before providing this ballot language, leaving Missourians with the impossible task of collecting 100,000 signatures in 14 days."

Laws related to petition blocking

2023

See also: Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures

Arkansas paid petition blocking

In 2023, Arkansas Senate Bill 377 was enacted, which made certain petition-blocking efforts a class A misdemeanor. The law required paid petition blockers, defined as persons or entities that pay people to interfere with a canvasser's attempt to solicit or obtain a signature, to register with the state, and to undergo criminal history checks.

See also

• Laws governing ballot measures