On August 1, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 168, which makes it illegal to pay initiative, referendum and recall petitioners on a per-signature basis. See this story. See this statement from Citizens in Charge. Here is the veto message.
Comments
California Governor Vetoes Bill to Outlaw Paying Circulators on a Per-Signature Basis — No Comments
One more 1st/14th Amdt lawsuit avoided ???
thank you jerry for saving my job
California’s Senate Bill 168 provided an appropriate attempt to achieve the Founding Fathers’ vision of the people assembling to petition government to correct policy decisions that the public actually were concerned about via Initiative. It is unfortunate that the Governor vetoed this modest Bill (passed by both houses of California’s Legislature). Instead of the public being empowered to petition on matters of broad public concern, this leaves in place a system that permits ONLY narrow moneyed interests to hire paid disinterested teams to harass and frequently defraud voters into signing petitions the voters know nothing about just so the voter can access their grocery store or post office (and the petition carrier can increase his/her pay). Governor Brown failed to protect either voter speech or petition with this veto.
#3, how many signatures have you ever collected on any one petition? I collected 100 signatures to get Roger MacBride on the California ballot as an independent presidential candidate in 1976 and it was a lot of work. It took me several weeks.
In regards to Stew Jenkins the petition business really needs to clean up its act. Convicted fraud merchants are still working in the business after having been convicted of varying degrees of fraud. If people got a receipt of what they signed so they can redact it later then the slamming and jamming would end.
“If people got a receipt of what they signed so they can redact it later then the slamming and jamming would end.”
This is an absurd comment. I’ve been involved in petitioning for over 11 years and I do not think that most petition circulators lie. Out of the ones who do lie, it is very easy to catch them in a lie and that is by READING THE PETITION. Anyone who READS A PETITION BEFORE they sign it will find out if the petition circulator lied to them or not. If the petition circulator will not allow you to read a petition, then don’t sign it. There is no need for any new legislation.
I don’t agree with Governor Jerry Brown on every issue, but I’m really glad to see that he did the right thing here by vetoing this horrible bill. If that bill would have passed it really would have damaged the petition process in California.
I heard that Jerry Brown has been involved with initiative petitions in the past so I’m glad to see that he remembered how difficult it is to place things on the ballot.
Andy have you ever done any signature transaction without a receipt? Buy anything or sign documents and you will always get a receipt. The petition industry refuses to clean up its act and allows slammers to continue to work. All the major companies have dodged a bullet. Now they should take it upon themselves to clean itself up. Because the Oregon law was put in place by unions collecting signatures. Protecting the few rotten apples is only going to make the whole crate spoil.
“The petition industry refuses to clean up its act and allows slammers to continue to work.”
This is a bunch of bull. There was a law passed in Florida a few years ago that said that people should be able to rescind their signatures on petitions after the petitions get turned in and I’m pretty sure that this was thrown out in court. Why? Because all that opponents of petitions have to do is mount a smear campaign against and initiative (or whatever other type of petition) and scare people into rescinding their signatures, even though the campaign to rescind signatures may be full of lies. This would make it far more difficult to get stuff on the ballot because petition proponents would never know how many signatures they have because due to people rescinding their signatures at different times.
Ultimately, the responsibility rests with the people who sign the petitions. I encourage everyone to read a petition before they sign it. If the petition circulator refuses to allow you to read a petition then don’t sign it. There’s no need for any new laws. Just read the freakin’ petitions before you sign them.
#4. Good for you Richard Winger for gathering 100 signature in 1976. Yes it is a lot of effort, and honorable effort when motivated by the support of the policies of the candidate or ballot measure you want to support. Those motivations will naturally translate into persuading potential signers of reasons supporting the measure (or candidate) and offering the petition for reading by the voter. An entirely different set of incentives are imposed where the motive for obtaining the signature is several dollars per signature, including an incentive to withhold the actual petition text, mislead concerning the petition’s effect to get the signature, and do whatever it takes to get each signature quickly enough to make room for the next “customer.”
But in answer to your question, yes Richard, I’ve pleasantly, passionately and honestly collected signatures for candidates and measures I’ve supported. Considerably more than 100 of them, and without being paid to seek out petition signers well before and long after 1976. Thanks for maintaining Ballot Access News and the contribution it makes to our democracy. It is well worth the read.
My best to “too” and “Andy” for their comments.
A person can lie about a petition whether they are being paid or not. Even if a person is not getting paid they could still have other incentives for wanting a petition to qualify for the ballot and these other incentives could motivate them to lie.
I really think that petitioners lying is blown way out of proportion. Are there any petitioners who lie? Yes, but they are NOT the majority, more like a few bad apples in a large batch where there rest of the apples are good.
Also, as I’ve said above, it is really easy to catch a petitioner in a lie if you READ THE FREAKING PETITION. Read the petition and then you will know whether or not the petitioner is lying. If the petition circulator won’t allow you to read the petition or if they have the text hidden and claim that it isn’t there, then don’t sign. We don’t need any new legislation, people just need to take responsibility by READING THE FREAKING PETITIONS.
A question about California’s circulation dates.
Two propositions are out there with paid circulators.
One against forced payroll contributions to labor unions for political purposes.
On the Sec. of State’s site, it shows that one with summary on 5/25 but with a due date of 10/24.
Then the Amazon referendum had summary on 7/18 with a due date of 9/27.
Do the proponents get to pick their “start” date for the gathering time zone?
I assume Amazon’s is so short because they are trying to hit some date to make the June Primary?
Perhaps the payroll group is only aiming for the November ballot?
Just wondering about the 2 month versus 5 month difference?
The difference between the due dates for the two is due to the difference between referenda and initiatives. An initiative has 150 days to be circulated from the date on which it was given an official title and summary by the Attorney General. A referendum has 90 days from the date when the law it is challenging was signed by the Governor.
Dave, thanks.
Is the Arno company doing the Amazon petition?
I see they’re paying $3 a signature.
Any idea how fast that will go. Seems its been about 10 days or so thus far for people gathering them up.
I was thinking if Americans Elect kept showing they were getting upwards of 70,000 per week, then with Amazon being simpler, and more lucrative ($3 vs $1.25-$2.00) would seem to easily get 100,000+ per week.
Thus getting 700,000 to 800,000 in less than the two months, while only needing some 500,000.
Anyone know how its going out there for the Amazon gathering compared to the Americans Elect petition.
Just off hand I’d think you could do more than double the Americans Elect each day…which was so vague and unusual to understand for the average Joe.
I’ve heard that National Petition Management has the contract on the Amazon (ie-Repeal the Internet Tax) referendum.
I am glad Jerry Brown vetoed this piece of legistlation. It sounds like the special interests were pushing this thorugh to essentially kill of the inititaive process here in California. It has a 100 year history of doing us great good in reforming the abuses of California government and special inteerest. I did spend a couple summers in college doing intiative gathering for .25 per signature.
I have heard a number of radio commericials recently telling people never to sign petitions as it will be used by fraduulent credit card scammers. I am wondering who is sposorinng those advertisements – but I again suspect it is though that always resist change in society. If there is any real concern about paid intiative signature gatherers, then a simpler bill would just require the Secretary of State to issue a license to do it based on passing a criminal background check (east to do these days with livescan).
One more 1st/14th Amdt lawsuit avoided ???
thank you jerry for saving my job
California’s Senate Bill 168 provided an appropriate attempt to achieve the Founding Fathers’ vision of the people assembling to petition government to correct policy decisions that the public actually were concerned about via Initiative. It is unfortunate that the Governor vetoed this modest Bill (passed by both houses of California’s Legislature). Instead of the public being empowered to petition on matters of broad public concern, this leaves in place a system that permits ONLY narrow moneyed interests to hire paid disinterested teams to harass and frequently defraud voters into signing petitions the voters know nothing about just so the voter can access their grocery store or post office (and the petition carrier can increase his/her pay). Governor Brown failed to protect either voter speech or petition with this veto.
#3, how many signatures have you ever collected on any one petition? I collected 100 signatures to get Roger MacBride on the California ballot as an independent presidential candidate in 1976 and it was a lot of work. It took me several weeks.
In regards to Stew Jenkins the petition business really needs to clean up its act. Convicted fraud merchants are still working in the business after having been convicted of varying degrees of fraud. If people got a receipt of what they signed so they can redact it later then the slamming and jamming would end.
“If people got a receipt of what they signed so they can redact it later then the slamming and jamming would end.”
This is an absurd comment. I’ve been involved in petitioning for over 11 years and I do not think that most petition circulators lie. Out of the ones who do lie, it is very easy to catch them in a lie and that is by READING THE PETITION. Anyone who READS A PETITION BEFORE they sign it will find out if the petition circulator lied to them or not. If the petition circulator will not allow you to read a petition, then don’t sign it. There is no need for any new legislation.
I don’t agree with Governor Jerry Brown on every issue, but I’m really glad to see that he did the right thing here by vetoing this horrible bill. If that bill would have passed it really would have damaged the petition process in California.
I heard that Jerry Brown has been involved with initiative petitions in the past so I’m glad to see that he remembered how difficult it is to place things on the ballot.
Andy have you ever done any signature transaction without a receipt? Buy anything or sign documents and you will always get a receipt. The petition industry refuses to clean up its act and allows slammers to continue to work. All the major companies have dodged a bullet. Now they should take it upon themselves to clean itself up. Because the Oregon law was put in place by unions collecting signatures. Protecting the few rotten apples is only going to make the whole crate spoil.
Andy don’t think the public cares about petitioners. They will pass laws against us in a heartbeat. Oregon voters passed it with a 75% vote. And the Liberal 9th circuit has held it up. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_26_(2002)
Jerry Brown did the initiative thing years ago. http://articles.sfgate.com/1998-11-04/news/17735810_1_oakland-voters-raiders-deal-city-s-next-mayor
“The petition industry refuses to clean up its act and allows slammers to continue to work.”
This is a bunch of bull. There was a law passed in Florida a few years ago that said that people should be able to rescind their signatures on petitions after the petitions get turned in and I’m pretty sure that this was thrown out in court. Why? Because all that opponents of petitions have to do is mount a smear campaign against and initiative (or whatever other type of petition) and scare people into rescinding their signatures, even though the campaign to rescind signatures may be full of lies. This would make it far more difficult to get stuff on the ballot because petition proponents would never know how many signatures they have because due to people rescinding their signatures at different times.
Ultimately, the responsibility rests with the people who sign the petitions. I encourage everyone to read a petition before they sign it. If the petition circulator refuses to allow you to read a petition then don’t sign it. There’s no need for any new laws. Just read the freakin’ petitions before you sign them.
#4. Good for you Richard Winger for gathering 100 signature in 1976. Yes it is a lot of effort, and honorable effort when motivated by the support of the policies of the candidate or ballot measure you want to support. Those motivations will naturally translate into persuading potential signers of reasons supporting the measure (or candidate) and offering the petition for reading by the voter. An entirely different set of incentives are imposed where the motive for obtaining the signature is several dollars per signature, including an incentive to withhold the actual petition text, mislead concerning the petition’s effect to get the signature, and do whatever it takes to get each signature quickly enough to make room for the next “customer.”
But in answer to your question, yes Richard, I’ve pleasantly, passionately and honestly collected signatures for candidates and measures I’ve supported. Considerably more than 100 of them, and without being paid to seek out petition signers well before and long after 1976. Thanks for maintaining Ballot Access News and the contribution it makes to our democracy. It is well worth the read.
My best to “too” and “Andy” for their comments.
A person can lie about a petition whether they are being paid or not. Even if a person is not getting paid they could still have other incentives for wanting a petition to qualify for the ballot and these other incentives could motivate them to lie.
I really think that petitioners lying is blown way out of proportion. Are there any petitioners who lie? Yes, but they are NOT the majority, more like a few bad apples in a large batch where there rest of the apples are good.
Also, as I’ve said above, it is really easy to catch a petitioner in a lie if you READ THE FREAKING PETITION. Read the petition and then you will know whether or not the petitioner is lying. If the petition circulator won’t allow you to read the petition or if they have the text hidden and claim that it isn’t there, then don’t sign. We don’t need any new legislation, people just need to take responsibility by READING THE FREAKING PETITIONS.
A question about California’s circulation dates.
Two propositions are out there with paid circulators.
One against forced payroll contributions to labor unions for political purposes.
On the Sec. of State’s site, it shows that one with summary on 5/25 but with a due date of 10/24.
Then the Amazon referendum had summary on 7/18 with a due date of 9/27.
Do the proponents get to pick their “start” date for the gathering time zone?
I assume Amazon’s is so short because they are trying to hit some date to make the June Primary?
Perhaps the payroll group is only aiming for the November ballot?
Just wondering about the 2 month versus 5 month difference?
The difference between the due dates for the two is due to the difference between referenda and initiatives. An initiative has 150 days to be circulated from the date on which it was given an official title and summary by the Attorney General. A referendum has 90 days from the date when the law it is challenging was signed by the Governor.
Dave, thanks.
Is the Arno company doing the Amazon petition?
I see they’re paying $3 a signature.
Any idea how fast that will go. Seems its been about 10 days or so thus far for people gathering them up.
I was thinking if Americans Elect kept showing they were getting upwards of 70,000 per week, then with Amazon being simpler, and more lucrative ($3 vs $1.25-$2.00) would seem to easily get 100,000+ per week.
Thus getting 700,000 to 800,000 in less than the two months, while only needing some 500,000.
Anyone know how its going out there for the Amazon gathering compared to the Americans Elect petition.
Just off hand I’d think you could do more than double the Americans Elect each day…which was so vague and unusual to understand for the average Joe.
I’ve heard that National Petition Management has the contract on the Amazon (ie-Repeal the Internet Tax) referendum.
I am glad Jerry Brown vetoed this piece of legistlation. It sounds like the special interests were pushing this thorugh to essentially kill of the inititaive process here in California. It has a 100 year history of doing us great good in reforming the abuses of California government and special inteerest. I did spend a couple summers in college doing intiative gathering for .25 per signature.
I have heard a number of radio commericials recently telling people never to sign petitions as it will be used by fraduulent credit card scammers. I am wondering who is sposorinng those advertisements – but I again suspect it is though that always resist change in society. If there is any real concern about paid intiative signature gatherers, then a simpler bill would just require the Secretary of State to issue a license to do it based on passing a criminal background check (east to do these days with livescan).