California State Senator Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) has introduced SB 213, to repeal California residency requirements for petitioners. Out-of-state circulators would need to register with the Secretary of State before starting to work. Thanks to Dave Kadlecek for the news.
It really might be better if they keep things like they are, because I’ve never seen or heard of any out-of-state petitioner ban being enforced in California, and nobody has to register with anything to circulate petitions.
The way things are now is miserable, because circulators have to sign under penalty of perjury that they live in the district (or in the state, if a statewide petition). Most people are afraid to sign something under penalty of perjury that is not true, even if officials tell them it doesn’t mean anything.
Also, if this bill passes, it will make it even easier to change the states that still enforce out-of-state bans, such as New York and Pennsylvania.
“Richard Winger Says:
February 14th, 2013 at 10:19 pm
The way things are now is miserable, because circulators have to sign under penalty of perjury that they live in the district (or in the state, if a statewide petition). Most people are afraid to sign something under penalty of perjury that is not true, even if officials tell them it doesn’t mean anything.”
I’ve done lots of petitioning in California, and I’ve never seen an out-of-state petitioner there turned down for the opportunity for work, and they’ve always been able to work, and I’ve never seen one be afraid to sign a declaration, because they will just sign it for wherever it is they are staying, including a motel (depending on the duration of the petition drive, sometimes they are in the motel for more than 30 days, but other times they are not).
Now there could be a new, bureaucratic procedure for out-of-state petitioners to “sign in” with the Secretary of State’s office. Petitioners will not like this.
“Also, if this bill passes, it will make it even easier to change the states that still enforce out-of-state bans, such as New York and Pennsylvania.”
I do agree that the remaining out-of-state bans in places like New York and Pennsylvania need to be struck down, but I really don’t see how it is currently a problem in California since I’m not aware of it ever being followed or enforced in the 12 1/2 plus years that I’ve been involved with this stuff.
The only time it was ever a problem in California was when certain cities and counties enforced an out-of-city or out-of-county petition circulator ban for city or county petitions, but this got thrown out in court back in 2007, so it has not been a problem since then.
Andy, you are only approaching the problem from the standpoint of professional circulators. But candidate petitions in California are much smaller, and therefore they are mostly circulated by volunteers, and they are very intimidated by the perjury threat on the forms.
“Richard Winger Says:
February 15th, 2013 at 8:22 am
Andy, you are only approaching the problem from the standpoint of professional circulators. But candidate petitions in California are much smaller, and therefore they are mostly circulated by volunteers, and they are very intimidated by the perjury threat on the forms.”
I thought that the residency requirement for district petitions in California was already thrown out in court, unless of course you are talking about the theoretical possibility of an out-of-state petitioner coming in to California to work a district candidate petition (I’ve never heard of anyone doing this, but I suppose they could).
The signature requirements for parties that are already qualified for the ballot is pretty low, so they are usually obtained by the candidate, or the candidate and a few volunteers. I’ve never heard of anyone paying petitioners to fulfill this requirement.
The signature requirement for independent candidates and for parties that are not ballot qualified is much higher, and they do higher petitioners to do that in California when these type of petitions happen.