At least three bills have been introduced in Missouri to make it more difficult for initiatives to get on the ballot.
HJR 63 increases the number of signatures. Existing law requires constitutional changes to obtain signatures of 5% of the last gubernatorial vote, in each of six U.S. House districts. The bill would increase that to 10%. For Constitutional amendments, existing law now requires 8% of the last gubernatorial vote; the bill makes it 15%. Even if this bill passes, it can’t take effect unless the voters approve it, since it is a proposed state constitutional amendment.

SB 796 is Senator Joan Bray’s new attempt to outlaw paying initiative circulators on a per-signature basis.

HB 1441, by Representative J. C. Kuessner, is a strange bill that says, “Every in-state entity that is not a natural person that wishes to circulate any petition for any initiative or referendum shall register with the secretary of state. No such in-state entity that has not been registered with the secretary of state under this section for at least one year shall circulate any petition for any initiative or referendum. No out-of-state entity shall circulate any petition for any initiative or referendum.” Presumably this bill relates to organizations that sponsor initiative or referendum petitions. The bill’s wording is strange, because organizations don’t circulate petitions, individual people circulate petitions.

On January 22, the Democratic and Republican Parties of Washington state each filed amended complaints in the case challenging the constitutionality of the “top-two open primary” that the voters passed in 2004. The case is Washington State Republican Party v State, cv05-927. Here is the Republican Party’s amended complaint. Here is the Democratic Party’s amended complaint. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the latter.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March 2008, in this very same lawsuit, that “top-two” is not unconstitutional on its face, as to the freedom of association argument, but said it might be unconstitutional as applied. Newspapers in California and Washington have failed to communicate this information to their readers. They constantly say that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law.

On January 20, a group that wished to qualify a local ballot initiative in Fort Myers, Florida, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case, Citizens for Police Accountability Political Committee v Browning, 09-861. The issue is Florida’s discriminatory law concerning polling places on election day. Florida law says exit pollsters may talk to voters on their way out of the polling place location, within 25 feet of the entrance to the polling place. But petitions cannot talk to votes on their way out of the polling place location, any closer than 100 feet. UPDATE: here is the cert petition filed by Citizens for Police Accountability.

Petitioning at the polls is very successful, because virtually everyone leaving the polling place is a registered voter. The U.S. District Court, on August 22, 2008, had granted an injunction against the Florida law for petitioners. But the U.S. Court of Appeals had reversed that on June 25, 2009. The 11th circuit said it would bother voters to be approached by circulators, but didn’t really explain why exit pollsters are treated better than petitioners. Neither exit pollsters nor petitioners wish to talk to voters on their way in to vote. They only wish to approach people leaving. Exit pollsters typically ask voters to fill out a questionaire that contains between 20 and 30 questions. That takes longer, and is more intrusive, than a petition circulator asking a voter to sign his or her name and address to a petition. Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news.