California Assemblymember Richard Gordon (D-Menlo Park) has introduced AB 481, to require all individuals who circulate an initiative, referendum or recall petition to wear a badge. If the circulator is being paid, the badge must say “Paid Circulator.” If the circulator is not being paid, the circulator’s badge must say “Volunteer Signature Gatherer.” The badge must be in at least 30-point type and must be worn on the chest, and must be visible. Here is the text of the bill.

The bill has a hearing in the Assembly Elections Committee on Tuesday, April 12, probably at 1:30 p.m. The bill also requires all petitions to be printed with a statement that tells if that sheet is being circulated by a paid circulator or a volunteer circulator. This makes petitioning more expensive, because the proponents would generally need to print two different versions of their petition.

This is a remarkably thoughtless bill. The bill makes no reference to whether the petition is being circulated in public, or not. Thus, under the literal terms of the bill, no one could go to a private meeting, as a volunteer, and ask individuals at that meeting to sign the petition, unless the circulator were weaing a badge. Many volunteers only collect a few signatures on any petition. Sometimes blank petitions forms are mailed to individuals, and the enclosed letter asks the recipient to please circulate the petition among family members or neighbors and return the petition in an enclosed envelope. Under the bill, even these individuals would be breaking the law if they didn’t wear a badge.

The bill is co-sponsored by Assemblymember Ben Hueso (D-San Diego), who had his own bill for badges for circulators, AB 651. However, that bill was amended to delete the badge requirement. As originally introduced, it would have required paid circulators to wear a badge identifying the person or company who was paying them.

The Oregon House Rules Committee will hold a public hearing on HB 2442 on Wednesday, April13. The bill makes it illegal for any qualified party to be named the “Independent Party.” Because Oregon already has a ballot-qualified party named the Independent Party, this bill raises serious due process concerns. It would have been one thing for Oregon to have passed a law like this if there were not already such a party, but quite another to tell an existing party that it must change its name. The bill does give the Independent Party an opportunity to choose a new name for itself.

The Independent Party became ballot-qualified in 2006. It has never had a presidential nominee. The impetus for the creation of the party was that in 2005, the Oregon legislature passed a very hostile bill, making it more difficult for independent candidates to get on the ballot. The 2005 bill said that primary voters could not sign an independent candidate’s petition. People who are protective of the right of independent candidates to get on the ballot then created the Independent Party, as a vehicle to help persons who might otherwise have desired to be independent candidates. The 2005 bill did not make it more difficult for new parties to get on the ballot. Fortunately, in 2009, the Oregon legislature repealed the 2005 bill.

In all U.S. history, no state has ever passed a law, telling a party that was already ballot-qualified that it had to change its name. The closest instance was in New York. After the American Labor Party had ceased to be ballot-qualified in November 1954, the legislature passed a law saying no party could have “American” in its name, but at least the New York legislature did wait until after the party was off the ballot. The New York law is still on the books, but is probably unconstitutional.

A U.S. District Court in the western district of North Carolina will hear Brody v North Carolina State Board of Elections, 3:10-cv-383, on April 28. This is the case in which the plaintiff-candidate, Mark Brody, argues that he should have been permitted to appear on the 2010 ballot as an independent candidate for state house, with no petition. He had successfully petitioned in 2008 as an independent candidate for the same seat, and had polled 30.6% of the vote.

The state told him he needed 2,367 valid signatures to appear on the 2010 ballot. He argues that this is illogical, because in 2008 in the same district and with the same label, he had received 9,182 votes. He maintains that the petition as applied to him is redundant because he has already showed that he has the needed voter support to run again. The state will argue that the case is moot and that it should be dismissed.

The other North Carolina ballot access case that concerns independent candidates, Greene v North Carolina Board of Elections, is pending in the 4th circuit. No hearing date has been set. The Greene case argues that the 4% (of the number of registered voters) petition requirement is unconstitutional because it has never been used by a candidate for U.S. House.