Massachusetts Representative Harriett Stanley (D-West Newbury) has introduced two bills to restrict people who circulate initiative and referendum petitions. HB 207 says, “No person shall engage in the collection of signatures for an initiative or referendum petition for money or any other thing of value.” That bill, if enacted, would be held unconstitutional under the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court opinion Meyer v Grant, 486 U.S. 414. That unanimous decision held that petitioning is First Amendment activity and that states can’t ban paying people to circulate petitions.

Representative Stanley also introduced HB 206, which requires circulators to wear a badge showing their name and address. That bill, if enacted, would be unconstitutional under Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999), which struck down a Colorado law requiring paid circulators to wear a badge giving their name and address. That U.S. Supreme Court decision did not decide whether a state can require a circulator to wear a badge that tells if he or she is being paid. HB 206 also requires the badge to say how much the circulator is being paid. And it requires the badge to say who the employer is, and which organizations are paying the employer. All this must be clearly visible and in 14-point type. A circulator who violates this law can be fined $500, and his or her employer can be fined $5,000. Thanks to Carla Howell for this news.

On February 22, the Green Party of Arkansas filed this reply brief in the 8th circuit, in Green Party of Arkansas v Martin, 10-3106. This is the case that challenges the Arkansas law that removes a party from the ballot after each election, unless it polled 3% of the vote for the office at the top of the ballot (Governor in midterm years, President in presidential years).

On February 17, Michael Chamness filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, alleging that California’s new election law unconstitutionally discriminates against him and other candidates who are not members of a qualified party. The case is Chamness v Bowen, central district, 2:11-cv-01479. He was a candidate for State Senate in the February 15 special election, and he also intends to be a candidate in the upcoming special U.S. House in the 36th district.

He is a registered member of the Coffee Party. The state will only print “No party preference” next to his name on the ballot. It will neither let him have “My party preference is the Coffee Party”, nor will it let him put “Independent” on the ballot next to his name. By contrast, members of qualified parties have a choice. They can either have “My party preference is the (whatever party the candidate is registered into), or “No party preference.” Here is the brief.

Chamness had attempted to intervene in a somewhat similar state court lawsuit, but the state court did not permit him to intervene in that lawsuit, which is called Field v Bowen and is pending in the State Court of Appeals in San Francisco.