No way. This proposal goes too far. I support the requirement that signature gatherers be registered to vote in Oregon, and a resident of at least 90 days; but the $100 fee to participate, and the invalidation of legitimate signatures if the gatherer turns out to be a criminal, is overly punitive to the average Joe. Protecting ourselves from identity theft is a matter of constant vigilance, but I think this proposal creates too much hardship for legitimate particpants while reducing the risk of theft negligibly.

... But reconcile all this with the fact that the thrust of court cases in other jurisdictions have been to equate circulating with free speech. This came up in discussion awhile ago before the esteemed Legislative Counsel reminded us all that setting such standards did not pass the strict scrutiny required of an activity so material to participation in the democratic process.

Translation:

Things like circulator training are immediately linked to the quality and integrity of the gathering process, and would likely be allowed. Restrictions such as residency are not intrinsically linked to the integrity of the process and therefore would not (and should not) pass muster.

Why not go one better and require people to get a license to vote? Surely we shouldn't leave the important matters of state in the hands of the uninformed. And, while the initiative process may have been usurped by a professional industry, there are more than a few of us still out here who volunteer because we care and believe in what we're doing. But, by all means, let's create new rules and additional costs in the name of protecting us all from some scallowags.

I like the proposal, except the $100 fee seems a /little/ steep to me. Although the administrative costs are a good reason to have a fee. Just feels a bit much.

Since it's an Oregon initiative process, theoretically in place so that citizens of Oregon have an avenue to legislate as a body, I like requiring that signature gatherers be residents of the state affected by the outcome of an initiative. I was always bothered by the carpetbagging gatherers on a philosophical level. And not just because it made it irritating to go to the U of O library except during the period from 4:15 to 4:30 or so in the afternoon when the gatherers all vanished.

I agree with the aims of this proposal, but I'm not sure how much of this is constitutional, especially the residency requirement. Out of state money and organizations are a problem across the board when they interfer in state politics, e.g. the TABOR folks, but the right to free speech would seem to guarantee their right to meddle.

I think the initiative process is broken; mainly because the threshold for getting on the ballot is much to low. We have a republic, not a direct democracy, and for the very good reason that direct democracy is not as deliberative and tends to devolve into mob rule. It's doubtful any bill that enjoys a mere 50.01% of support ought to be passed, but that's what initiatives do. The original intent of the initiative process, as I understand it, was to serve as a way to correct egregious misbehavior or negligence by elected officials, not to serve as an end-run around the regular legislative process, which is where it's devolved.

An imperfect but partial solution might be to make initiatives subject to the same double-majority rules that have so knee-capped school funding. sigh

A contrarian view:

Why not eliminate the need for a circulator's verification at all? Let 'em put petitions on tables, in break rooms, at the mall with no person at all hassling people. We can view, read and sign them at our own pace without dealing with a "salesman". Since we are moving to a statewide voter database, we won't need to have county-by-county sheets.

When signatures are checked, the SOS can determine how many are valid voters. No more disenfranchising thousands of legitimate signatures because a circulator put the wrong date at the bottom.

Heck, I can see the day coming when circulators (if we even have them) can carry around those electronic boards like the UPS and FedEx guys. Type in the person's name, instantly verify they are a registered voter and let 'em sign.

There are lots of possibilities.

If we can't get rid of circulators (I don't think Washington has circulators signatures at the bottom, do they?), then I'm not sure a background check to collect information readily available in most phone books is really the way to go unless you goal is merely to further stiffle participation in the process of initiatives and referendums.

That's the thing I love most about liberals (oops, I mean progressives). Find an exception to a rule, create a bunch of new rules that everyone has to follow to stop that rare exception, regardless of the cost or burden on the people following the rules. To follow your direction to its logical conclusion and at some point only ID'd government employees (especially sworn law enforcement officers) will be able to circulate petitions or voters will have to go to the their county election office to sign one.

'Um, duh... We already do that. It's called a "voter registration form".' Um, duh, not really. Filling out a form is not the same as being licensed. To get a license (such as the aforementioned requirement to cut hair), typically, one must demonstrate some level of knowledge and proficiency. A large segment of the registered (er, licensed) voters lack both.

I think you're right on the money, Kari. Something has to be done to fix our highly-abused system.

How about this simple alternative: just ban the practice of paying signature gatherers. If you require this to be a volunteer effort, you'll eliminate about 99% of the fraud and 100% of the out-of-state mercenary gatherers.

You'll also reduce the number of measures that make it to the ballot. But those that do, will have done so because actual citizens cared enough to get other people to sign the petition. So much for the special interest machines, and the ability of big $$$ to buy a spot on the ballot.

I think I've heard about legal challenges to banning paid gatherers, but surely there must be some way to craft a law that would pass muster?

It is wonderous to me that some of you are worried about being "within the law", "constitutional", when Kari makes only the requirement that they be a 30 day resident, have a OR divers license and voter registration card. All three items can be obtained easily and illegally in our state by illegal aliens and otherwise. There are petition signature gatherers now on the streets that are illegal aliens.

What average Joes? This is a professional industry we're talking about. You have to get a license to cut hair, why not to collect signatures from voters?

You shouldn't have to get a license to cut hair, either. It just keeps good people from making an honest, family wage.

Big money has been buying (oops, influencing) politicians for the past 200 years. Now big money has discovered that, at least in Oregon and the other initiative states, they can skip the politicians and "influence" the voters directly. Unfortunately for the voters, they don't actually get their share of the cash that used to go to the politicians. Instead, the cash goes to professional signature gathering organizations and, once the matter is on the ballot, the money goes to slick advertising agencies and political marketing firms who engineer the outcome of the elections. The losers in this equasion are the politicians who lose out on their share of the graft (oops, donations), and the voters.

Why stop at licensing signature gatherers with a $100 fee?

Let's charge each elector a fee for signing each petition, and then only after they produce a valid, biometric voter's ID card.

Finally, charge each elector a fee to vote. But what do we call it? I know . . .

. . . a poll tax

• Wes

So let me get this straight, We don't like paid circulators, so we make an already undecipherable system that removes most volunteers from the process and make it even tougher for them by requiring licencing and steep fees to circulate to friends and family?

I have spent the past year working on initiatives and call myself fluent in the rules and laws concerning the initiative system, and I'll tell you right now, the process as it stands disenfranchises the volunteer.

To point, the Parental Notification petition held back over 20,000 signatures from volunteers because the "simple" rules of the SOS would've disqualified the sheets because of things like making a correction on your date, writing over your date, your signature not exactly matching your signature on you voter reg card (which you might've sent in decades before.) Here is one really fun rule:

(page 8 of the State Initiative and Referendum Manual) (4) The following defects in the circulator certification will not result in rejection of the signature sheet: (d) The circulator has re-signed and re-dated the certification and the circulator's original signature has not been crossed out.

Yep, that's a quadruple negative statement, and not the worst of the draconian rules. (I invite all that call for changes to the system to go ahead and try to read ORS and OAR election laws first.)

So already, the rules make it near impossible for a non-lawyer to participate in the process. Kari, your rules would make it even worse.

Most campaigns do everything they can to get volunteers involved and even run mailing campaigns sending thousands of petitions to peoples homes so that they can sign, have a spouse, friend, co-worker etc, sign then certify and send back to the campaign. That sounds like a reasonable action that would be decimated by your rules.

Lastly, I see no evidence of ONE crime being committed here, let alone systemic problems that would require legislation. You've shown one article from P-towns eminent rag that says that one man that had a conviction 4 years ago had circulated petitions. Does that sound like enough of a problem to shut volunteers out of the process or is just another scare tactic to shut down the initiative process?

And why should candidates get off easy?

Since Oregon politics should be run for and by Oregonians, we should ban all non-resident persons from working for any Oregon candidate (sorry, Jim Ross, back to CA).

Canvassers should also sport gov't issued ID (after filing a canvassing fee) before they are allowed to go door-to-door. After all, holding a clip board and asking support for a candidate is not that far removed from holding a clip board and asking support for a prospective petition.

Think how pure the system would be. Oregon politics run only by Oregonians who have been vetted, strip searched, photographed and charged a fee.

And that's just the voter registration process . . .

• Wes

You've made some great suggestions, however many of them would not pass Constitutional review. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that states cannot bar petitioners from being paid, and requiring petitioners to pay fees and pass screenings to collect signatures would most likely violate the free speech protection clause of the Constitution as well as be interpreted as a "tax" on elections / a poll tax.

Thanks for the link, Doretta. I knew I'd heard about that somewhere before.

I found the specific case cited here for those who are interested.

Reading the court's decision, I was struck by how ridiculous their assertions are. I assumed it must have been narrowly decided 5-4.

Turns out it was a unanimous decision. I am completely flabbergasted. It seems like such a weak argument to me that not allowing you to pay someone else to circulate a petition on your behalf is an infringement of your own ability to engage in political speech.

Having a right to speak does not confer a right to have an audience, for cryin' out loud.

Ah well. I must say, having read this case, I also doubt that any of the other restrictions mentioned here could possibly pass the same test, as in each case they by definition restrict "core political speech".

Wouldn't it be easier to just get rid of the initiative system? I mean, that's pretty clearly what you really want to do. Why waste our time with all this silliness?

Jenni-

I would say that well over 2,000 people have been paid to work on circulating petitions over this season. How many cases of fraud have been recorded this year?

What evidence/proof of fraud are you refering to?

My overarching opinion is that the WILL OF THE VOTER is the first consideration. There are laws preventing pay by signature and when those laws are broken, people are held to account. That does not mean that the person that signed that petition did not want to see that issue on the ballot.

Throwing out signatures because a circulator corrected a date, has an illegable signature, hasn't updated their signature everytime it drifts, etc, does not rise to the level of putting the will of the voter first.

Which is the cleaner system:

To have inividuals putting forward a policy, paying agents to put that issue in front of the people and having the people vote on that policy,

or

Having corporations and unions buy representatives to push special interest legislation at the capitol

Jenni-

I have great respect for you and your intellegence and activism...

...but what you link to is an accusation. There have been many accusations by a group that is well paid to make accusations and block the initiative system where it can.

I only know of one investigation by the SOS that has lead to a fine. That judgement came in without the accused present to defend himself. Regardless, one case of paying per signature does not show that the system needs to be overhauled. In fact I have yet to see a compelling argument on how paying per hour over per signature makes fraud less likely.

I would rather have electronic petitions so people can more easily sign them using their voter registration/SS/drivers license numbers.

We should go one step further on this proposal and require that the companies that pay the gatherers be Oregon based and/or have at least more than 90% employees (other than the gatherers) employed by the company and that all the gatherers be in Oregon not for 90 days - but for 1 year. If you are going to hawk signatures for an issue, you better care about the issue and not your paycheck.