On December 23, a lower state court in Nebraska ruled that the recall petition for Mayor of Omaha has enough valid signatures. Proponents of the recall needed 26,643 valid signatures. They collected 37,596, and elections officials ruled that approximately 29,000 were valid. Opponents of the recall then sued the elections officials, saying the number of valid signatures is actually fewer than the requirement. However, the judge did not find any invalid signatures among those that elections officials had said are valid.
Even though half the signatures were collected by volunteers, the cost of collecting the other half was $300,000. Proponents of the recall say that the cost was extraordinarily high because of Nebraska’s laws against using out-of-state circulators, and laws against paying circulators on a per-signature basis. See this story.
“However, the judge did not find any invalid signatures among those that elections officials had said are valid.”
The judge said that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof to show that a sufficient number were invalid.
Why would paying circulators on a per-signature basis be cheaper?
The best presentation of evidence I have seen, in an easy-to-find place, is in Citizens for Tax Reform v Deters, 462 F Supp 2d 827 (2006); 518 F 3d 375 (2008, 6th circuit). That case concerned Ohio’s ban on paying per signature. Ohio asked for US Supreme Court review but the US Supreme Court wouldn’t hear it.
In the Omaha decision, one of the claims was that circulators were being paid on per signature basis. With some of the circulators testifying they had been paid $X per hour to gather Y signatures, but then correcting themselves. The head of the firm, testified that they did use productivity measures, but not as basis for payment. For example, they might move the circulator to a more productive location, give them additional training, or terminate their employment.
The Ohio law limited payment to strictly $X per hour, and did not permit various productivity measures, or payment on number of blocks, or number of contacts, etc. The 6th Court appeared to distinguish the Ohio law from laws that been upheld by other Courts of Appeals. Perhaps, they were being polite, and didn’t want to directly contradict the other courts. Or maybe there is a substantive difference between the Ohio law and those in other states.
So on the surface, it appears that Nebraska law is not as restrictive as the Ohio law was.
Was the newness of the Ohio law a factor in the decision? The petition contractor had a signed contract with the Ohio group which was voided after the law was passed.
Why are so many signatures on petitions invalid?
What year did the elected party hacks become the ENEMIES of the People ???
Where is the Model State Constitution ??? —
P.R.
App.V.
Voter petitions for const. amdts, laws, candidates, recalls — i.e. to change the EVIL statist *thinking* in ALL of the EVIL rotted to the core gerrymander regimes in the U.S.A. — Fed/State/Local.
It should cost no more than $2 per signature to collect signatures. So, since 15,000 sigs were paid, it should have cost about $30,000.
The cost is ten times as high.
Hourly workers have no incentive to produce, so their efficiency is nil and it cost 10 times as much. Not surprising.
That’s why is is best to pay piece rate for as many jobs as possible. Incentives to work vs. incentives to be lazy. It’s simple economics.
******
It is also easy to see, using basic logic skills, that the “top-two” electoral system will eventually lead to the creation of a one party Soviet styled electoral system. Two candidates chosen by one party controlled by the state. It’s the end of liberty and the end of free elections for America if this system is allowed to stand.
“However, the judge did not find any invalid signatures among those that elections officials had said are valid.” The judge said that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof to show that a sufficient number were invalid. Why would paying circulators on a per-signature basis be cheaper?