On November 18, both sides filed their final briefs in Pierce v Stapleton, 6:18cv-63. This is the case that challenges Montana’s ban on out-of-state circulators for initiative petitions, and the ban on paying signatures on a per-signature basis. A decision is likely fairly soon.
The out-of-state ban seems like a clear 1st Amendment violation.
The ban on paying per signature is more credible, but id have to know more about it.
There is no more credibility on banning pay per signature as there is with banning out-of-state circulators.
Petitions should be signed as part of assembly at government offices.
Andy
I see potential for fraud, if someone gets paid per signature as opposed to an hourly wage.
Again, if i were a judge on the case id want to see more research done.
Edward, there is no more potential for fraud if a person is paid by the signature or by the hour. North Dakota prohibits pay by the signature on initiative and referendum, as in petition proponents pay by the hour instead of by the signature, yet in 2012, two statewide initiative failed to qualify for the ballot due to several petition circulators forging signatures (they did end up being criminally charged).
A group called Citizens in Charge, founded by Paul Jacob, which promotes the initiative, referendum, and recall process, did a big study into cases of petition fraud, and they found that such cases were rare, and that when fraud did happen, whether it was pay by the signature, or pay by the hour, made no difference.
Pay by the signature is the most efficient way to utilize paid signature gatherers, because it incentivizes people to work harder, and because it is hard to determine how much to pay people otherwise, because different signature gatherers will have different levels of production.
Banning pay per signature just makes ballot access more difficult, which is the true intent of such bans.
Again, I see a possible temptation with paid by signature.
People might be tempted to get anyone to sign, even if they are not eligible to vote in the state.
If the research into the matter does not show the temptation being a problem, that would be persuasive to me (as hypothetical judge).
Is Paul Jacob your brother?
Signature FRAUD in ANY public stuff = perjury = a MAJOR FELONY in most States.
Again – public petition circulators = Notary Public — a HIGH office.
—
Any per item limits put on newspaper, magazine, etc. circulators
— in BLATANT violation of the 1st Amdt ???
Edward, paid petition signature gathering has been around for a long time. It goes back at least as far as the early days of the initiative and referendum process being enacted in various states. Most issues, and many candidates, would not qualify for the ballot without paid signature gatherers. Also, the courts have already ruled that paying people to gather signatures is a perfectly legal activity.
“Egyptian God,” no, I am not related to Paul Jacob, but given that Paul Jacob is a prolific activist for liberty, and has played a roll in numerous pro-liberty petition drives, it would be cool if I was.
Is it true that you are living in New Jersey now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_the_United_States
has reached wiki level
The issue is not so much paying people to collect signatures, its a question of HOW they are paid, i.e. per signature or a flat rate per hour.
Should read, “played a role” above.
If you pay people to collect signatures by the hour, or by salary, you disincentivize people to work hard. Why bother going to the effort to find busy locations and work hard if one is going to get paid the same as a person who does not do these things? Banning pay per signature does nothing to stop fraud (and fraud is already illegal), and it just makes it more difficult to places issues and candudates on the ballot.
Should read, “issues and candidates” above.
Edward, paid circulators are not motivated to cheat, because they will be found out, and then they are finished in the industry.
With PR in legislative bodies —
more or less pressure to put *controversial* stuff on the ballots for the SOVEREIGN voters to decide things ???
If petitions were gathered as part of a real assembly the problem is resolved.
Election clerks could be assigned to the assembly, and those assembled could sign the petition.
Jim, sometimes petitions are signed at assemblies, but it is not easy to arrange an assembly, and there may not be one that coincides with when the petition drive takes place. Also, the assembly may not be large enough to cover the number of signatures needed. Some petitions require in the tens, or hundreds, of thousands of signatures, and some even require over one million signatures. So for some petitions, there’d have to be multiple assemblies of football stadium size crowds to fulfill the signature requirements. This is not a realistic way of doing things.
@Andy,
Hold multiple assemblies.
Reduce the number of signatures. Those who would attend an assembly would be more sincere, and less likely to be unregistered, and they could be registered at the assembly.
Jim, part of the reason that the signature requirements are where they are set is because they want it to show broad public support for an issue or a candidate or party to be listed on the ballot. Also, setting up public assemblies, and getting people to show upat them, is not easy. A person may strongly support an issue or a candidate/party, but they may not be able to make it to an assembly, due to schedule conflicts (such as work, or school, or etc…), or maybe they do not have a car, or maybe they are handicapped.
If you want to lobby to change the laws to this, go for it, but I doubt you will be successful.
File init full text. Get Year-Number.
Have ONE Voter petition forms —
I want Init 2019-1 on the next [general] election ballots.
Sig, printed name, address, date signed.
Forms via all media – newspapers, advertising, mags, internet, etc.
—
Same ONE voter forms for candidates on ballots.
—
Direct internet forms if/when it is 100.000 pct safe about election stuff.
Also – ONLY voters be able to amend or repeal any approved Init.
Voters or legislative body may propose amdts or repeals of Inits.
Init = Const Amdt or mere law or ordinance.
@Andy,
The sponsors could hire buses for those without cars. The assemblies become a rally.
Assume the petition requirement was 0.1%. The largest would be 12+K for a stetewide candidate in California.
Jim, you are assuming that the spot so I sponsors can afford to hire enough buses, and that enough people can arrange their schedules to get on the buses and make it to these events.
You are doing a lot of assuming, and not being realistic, in my opinion.
Cost and time of a USPS postcard or letter versus cost and time of going to some assembly [full of flu folks] ???
Oregon still surviving with ALL USPS [absentee] ballots ???
@Andy,
The modicum of support can demonstrate some effort that they actually support the candidate.