Tis the Season to Sign Your Name
Paul Gronke
Readers of some of the election law blogs that I subscribe to are debating a recent Oklahoma court decision that upheld a ban on out of state petition circulators. According to Richard Winger, the OK Secretary of State's office argues that they cannot check the validity of petitions unless they can interview the circulators.
The opinions of the posters on Winger's blog are pretty uniform--this is an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights. Debate on Rick Hasen's Election Law listserv is a bit more balanced, perhaps reflecting its wider readership. On professor makes this interesting argument: A state can define the members of its political community, including voters, legislators, and persons acting in a quasi-public or quasi-legislative capacity, such as petition circulators. Contributors and press secretaries or political consultants don't serve the same functions. Moreover, their testimony isn't needed by challengers to determine the validity of signatures, and they don't have to be within the subpoena power of the courts.
Why is this relevant to Blue Oregon? As every citizen here knows, Oregon has become ground zero for crazy rich Nevadans (and others) who want to foist their ideas on the public. Since the entry barriers to the Oregon ballot are (relatively) low, we become a target for all sorts of experimentation.
A few proposals to reform the initiative and referendum process were proposed in the last legislative session, but they got nowhere. These proposals run smack into Oregon's proud progressive (the early 20th century version) tradition of citizen run government.
We can look forward to another six months of annoying petitioners knocking on our doors, bothering us on street corners, accosting us at public gatherings, all mainly funded by deep pocketed out of state interests.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:33 a.m.
Sep 11, '07
I was amused to see the Oregonian reporting Sizemore believed "3 or 4" of the measures would pass. That would represent a remarkable turnabout of his fortunes. Not to mention Loren Parks'. Fortunately, these guys have developed a brand identity that is somewhat less trusted than RJ Reynolds.
Sep 11, '07
So then that same reasoning would apply to Ted Blaszak of Democracy Resources? They have worked on some very progressive causes in Oregon and seem to be the darling of the unions and main-stream prog groups when it comes to petition drives.
Client list from their website:
But what if the president of the signature gathering firm lives out of state as Ted does? Sure, he has an office in Portland but he resides in Washington.
Or would a proposed law only apply to the circulators. In that case, would a circulator only need to register to vote in this state to qualify. That's easy to do and almost a requirement since our SoS rules are draconian on circulator declaration.
But realy would that fix anything. Is there anything to fix? As long as the signatures on the petitions are verified to be from Oregon voters, why does it matter where the circulator makes their permanent residence.
Lastly, you make think its annoying to have a participatory democracy, but I don't. I like having our democracy on the streets and in the face of voters.
We whine and cry about how tuned out our electorate is, but when it comes down to the direct democracy of the "Oregon System" we get annoyed.
Shame.
Sep 11, '07
It is very simple - just don't sign any petition, no matter how much the mercenary gatherers gripe about it if you don't. If it gets to the ballot, just vote no. Eventually if we keep it up like this (don't sign - vote no)they will just go away...maybe.
Also, anything that is sponsored or has any connection to Sizemore, Mannix, Parks, McIntyre and their ilk - thats an automatic NO.
Sep 11, '07
Reform proposal:
How about requiring all ballot measures to be revenue-neutral. In other words, if your measure requires the expenditure of money or reduces state revenue, then you have to include in the measure what services will be cut to pay for your policy.
Sep 11, '07
-Travis,
Before you start generalizing "progressives", I personally do not believe that any outside money sources should be funding state-wide measures. PERIOD.
Second, to counter your conservative "idealism" which has been debunked pretty often: In an era of a lack of media coverage on important issues, in particular a media that really acts as the Fourth Estate, most Americans are sorely undereducated in regard to most issues.
Third, it takes a little more than 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot in a state with over 3 million people. Is that fair? 5,000+ signatures to change the state constitution?? Ballot measures should require at least 100,000 signatures to get on the ballot and Constitutional Amendments should require 300,000 and have at least a 2/3rds of all registered voters vote in favor of changing the constitution.
Unlike your idealistic point of view, I am a realist.
11:40 a.m.
Sep 11, '07
Paul, I'm not sure what session you were following, but it is certainly not true that ballot reforms "went nowhere" in 2007.
The Oregon legislature passed HB 2082, a highly anti-democratic reform that effectively takes away the rights of Oregon citizens to circulate initiative petitions and ensures that those rights will rest solely in the hands of powerful special interest groups.
Unfortunately, as was the case in 2005, when the legislature essentially took away the ability of independent candidates to qualify for the ballot in Oregon, the media and the general public were largely asleep at the wheel when it happened, which is unfortunate since the net effect of both reforms is to further concentrate power in the hands of the powerful.
I don't like Sizemore, Mannix, FreedomWorks or any of the rest, but the correct way to fight their ill-conceived ideas is not to further erode the rights of citizens in this state.
11:43 a.m.
Sep 11, '07
Third, it takes a little more than 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot in a state with over 3 million people. Is that fair? 5,000+ signatures to change the state constitution??
That's completely false. It takes more than 100,000 valid signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. It takes in the neighborhood of 75,000 signatures to put a statute on the ballot.
Also, although I agree that it would be better if money from outside of Oregon were not spent here to influence our elections, particularly ballot initiatives, any attempt at such a restriction would run afoul of both the first and 14th amendments and Oregon's own protections on free speech and equal protection.
Sep 11, '07
I don't know where "liberalincarnate" got the idea that 5,000 signatures will put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. You need to collect the signatures of 8% of the number of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election to amend the constitution - well over 100,000 valid signatures. With the validity rates as low as they are these days, you're not really "safe" unless you have gathered at least 135,000 signatures.
12:28 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
There's a huge difference between out-of-state money pouring into the state to run ballot campaigns and the head of an Oregon business living across the river in Washington.
We're talking about the organizations that come up with and fund the measures here, which is different than the companies that do the work to collect the signatures.
Not that there doesn't need to be rules on those companies (such as the per signature payments that were voted in a few years back).
As a disclaimer, I have done some work for Ted in the past.
Sep 11, '07
Jenni,
Point taken on contributions, what was discussed was limiting the circulation of petitions to exclude anyone who is out of state.
Contributions are a 1st amendment issue and contributions to issue campaigns and initiatives have always been protected on a federal level. That is a barrier that the state cannot hurdle.
What I was talking about was a ban on out-of-state circulators and I haven't heard a cogent response as to how that affects the quality of the 100,000+ signatures needed to qualify an initiative.
I am most certainly not a conservative. I do not hold the actions of a few to invalidate Oregon's initiative process.
12:41 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
I would like to see the laws changed to make it illegal for petitioners from outside Oregon to collect signatures. I don't however see that as something that will happen.
As two people have pointed out, you have to have quite a few more signatures 5,000 to get on the ballot. I think Becky is also correct in that because of the verification process, a petition ought have 10-20% over the amount needed to alot for invalid signatures.
I also agree with the person who said that outside money regardless of the cause, should be funding ballot measures.
The problem with that gets into freedom of speech issues in that limiting or prohibiting money from outside the state could be seen as a violation of that. I don't know for sure (I'm no constitutional scholar, so maybe someone else could take up that one). Are there any similar laws in other states?
12:50 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
Are there any similar laws in other states?
I'd certainly support laws to ban corporate contributions to initiatives and to place limits on individual contributions. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, the courts have never upheld any attempts to limit contributions to ballot initiatives on the grounds that such limits violate first amendment protections on free speech.
Montana was the state that most recently attempted to limit contributions to their initiative process.
Sep 11, '07
The question is: Why would someone who lives in Nevada care about what happens in Oregon? Don't they have enough problems in Nevada to worry about?
Another question: Why gather signatures for an Oregon issue when you live in another state? That is what I think is the issue in this - mercenaries who come from outside Oregon (and don't reside in Oregon)to gather signatures just to make money and leave and not care one hoot either way about the outcome of the issue they are gathering for. This is why we need to have gatherers who are from the state they are asking signatures for. That way there would be more at stake (i.e actually caring about the issue for the ballot) than just a paycheck and a 'don't ask questions, just sign it' attitude.
1:02 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
I see requiring circulators to have to be from Oregon to be a completely different issue than it is for the owner of the company to be from Oregon. And what about companies that are owned by a number of people? It gets to be a difficult issue.
1:59 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
The Oregon legislature passed HB 2082, a highly anti-democratic reform that effectively takes away the rights of Oregon citizens to circulate initiative petitions
Welp Sal. You're generally correct in this assertion, but it might be a good idea to remember that the United States is a republic which is a subset of the general category of democracies. A republic, which puts layers of representation between the people and the minting of new laws, is designed specifically to curb the baser instincts on The Rabble (us).
When the corporatists last had a complete stranglehold on the US gummint, around the end of the nineteenth century, the initiative petition was installed in many states to put a check on the wholly corrupt system.
In the intervening century, said corporatists have learned to negate any value such "direct democracy" might once have had. These guys are like Terminators. They feel no remorse or pity, and they never, ever, give up.
The only way to counter them is to continually invent new tools and strategies to combat them, and to discard those obsolete tools that have been twisted against us.
In recent years, we've seen the complete neutering of the Fourth Estate, followed by a migration of truthtellers to the internet. This has had the effect of rejuvenating the press to some degree, mostly, I'd argue, because intelligent bloggers and commenters have revealed the embarrassing moral bankruptcy of the Neo-press idea of balancing every story, regardless of the relevant facts.
We need to ban initiative petitions outright. They have outlived their usefulness.
While we're at it, we might attack another mainstay of the republic, the Electoral College.
Sep 11, '07
Travis,
Quick correction…
I am an Oregonian! My family and I live at 2836 SE Washington St in Milwaukie OR.
We lived in Washougal WA for two years but moved back early this year. I love my Oregon!!! I’ve lived here for a total of 12 years. I was married in the backyard of the first house Debra and I lived in together…on Yukon Street in Portland. And both of my kids were born here. I have never felt more at home then in the company of my fellow Oregonians. I love our beer, our hazelnuts, and our family trips to Seaside. I even like that someone else pumps my gas.
BTW… Great to hear so much talk about initiatives lately, it’s just too bad that it’s all about conservative measures.
But the year isn’t over yet.
One more thing… This past Spring, I was a lead witness for both the House and Senate committees on HB 2082, a law designed to create a more transparent and ethical signature gathering process. This was one of the highlights of my professional career and I hope Oregon can continue moving in this direction, becoming a model for other states.
PS… Web site update will be coming real soon at democracyresources.com
Sep 11, '07
Welcome back to Oregon, Ted.
Keep those progressive petitions rolling.
3:23 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
Hey Pat, I'm right there with your screed about corporations, and I seem to recall hearing something about the difference between a representative republic and a direct democracy back in college.
But I just can't step with your suggestion that because corporations and bad guys like Sizemore use the initiative process that we should chuck out the process altogether.
It's true that that process, like any legislative process, can be corrupted, but it is basically the only tool available to people and organizations that have been historically locked out of our legislative process.
The initiative gave us our last cigarette tax after RJR and their paid terminators successfully fought off any and all efforts to give that tax a hearing in Salem, much less an up or down vote.
The bottle bill, scenic byways, gmo labeling, death with dignity, medical marijuana, universal health care, campaign finance reform, etc. are just a small list of progressive initiatives that have been pushed successfully or not, using the initiative process.
The tool itself is neither good nor bad. If we're having too many bad outcomes through it's use, then that just tells me that progressives just need to get smarter and more aggresive about how we use the process.
3:28 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
This past Spring, I was a lead witness for both the House and Senate committees on HB 2082, a law designed to create a more transparent and ethical signature gathering process.
Hi Ted,
Let's be real honest about that. HB 2082 was designed to make sure that only well-funded organizations have the ability to file an initiative petition in this state.
It is a law that flies in the face of Oregon's vaunted free speech protections and essentially says that petitioning is no longer an individual right in Oregon.
3:33 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
HB2082 is probably also unconstitutional since it takes public places that are traditionally reserved for free speech such as library grounds, post offices grounds, and other government buildings and essentially makes it illegal to collect signatures at those locations during certain times of the year.
Sep 11, '07
"The tool itself is neither good nor bad. If we're having too many bad outcomes through it's use, then that just tells me that progressives just need to get smarter and more aggresive about how we use the process."
My Way is to vote "no" on everything unless: it does not hurt others in a vindictive way, it is a truly State issue, it is not a personal vendetta (like Sizemore's are generally), and it doesn't mess with the constitution.
Then again, if it has any connection to Sizemore, Mannix, Parks, McIntyre, and any others of that ilk, its a "no" no matter how good or bad it is.
Sep 11, '07
Sal,
You’re a great guy but I have no idea where you’re coming from on this. The three main provisions of HB 2082 that impact signature gathering are:
• Pre-registration of circulators • Brief, centralized training for circulators • Campaigns have to keep accurate payroll records
There’s nothing in the new law that mentions times or locations for gathering. Please read the actual law and quote it to me if I’m wrong.
As someone who’s qualified dozens of initiatives for the ballot in and out of Oregon, I can honestly say that these regulations will only make signature gathering companies like mine more transparent and more accountable. There’s really nothing in this law that makes it any more difficult than it always has been to put an initiative on the ballot.
I’ve worked with a lot of campaigns in the past…Travis was nice enough to list some of them for me…and not all of them were well-funded. Trust me when I say that being honest and ethical when gathering signatures is not an undue hardship.
If you want more details about the new regulations under HB 2082, take a look at this link.
http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/hb2082_changes.pdf
4:53 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
There’s nothing in the new law that mentions times or locations for gathering. Please read the actual law and quote it to me if I’m wrong.
You're right. The bit about locations got watered down in later versions.
The three main provisions of HB 2082 that impact signature gathering are:
• Pre-registration of circulators • Brief, centralized training for circulators • Campaigns have to keep accurate payroll records
Hi Ted, I think you're great at what you do and a nice guy to boot, but the truthiness of that statement is not lost on me.
You forgot to mention the biggest impact of the law:
A person now needs to collect a minimum of 1000 sponsorship signatures to file an initiative petition.
As I said earlier, that effectively takes away the rights of Oregon citizens to circulate initiative petitions and ensures that those rights will rest solely in the hands of powerful special interest groups.
4:54 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
that last note should have read individual Oregon citizens...
4:59 p.m.
Sep 11, '07
Why?
What about a ballot measure that is for the purposes of increasing revenue to cover healthcare for kids, or for improving schools, repairing bridges, etc.
The demand that every measure or legislative action be revenue neutral is absurd and (I presume) based on the totally bankrupt and failed ideology of GOP "starve-the-beast" hoo-haw.
I do not buy into the thinking that moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket does anything to increase investments in our future. Do you ascribe to the notion that in order to fix a bridge, I have to cut schools? That in order to expand healthcare coverage we have to cut state trooper?
Sep 11, '07
I'm not signing any petitions circulated by paid petitioners, period.
Nor am I voting for them.
Color me an old fogey who remembers and was active on the petition front when it was all volunteer, and wishes it could go back to that status. Then we'd really know what measures honestly have grassroots support.
Sep 11, '07
The demand that every measure or legislative action be revenue neutral is absurd and (I presume) based on the totally bankrupt and failed ideology of GOP "starve-the-beast" hoo-haw.
I suspect Betsy left off the part that an initiative that spends money must either cut another service OR raise the revenue to pay for itself. The idea is that you can't just come along and say "Hey, spend $100 million on MY idea" without telling the voters where the money is coming from. It's a totally reasonable reform, and it actually will prevent the gutting of one program to pay for another (since that would have to be spelled out in the initiative). So healthy kids is no problem, because it raises revenue to pay for itself -- and it's good policy to boot.
What revenue neutrality is really aimed at are conservative initiatives that cut taxes without cutting programs. Sizemore wants to cap property taxes? Fine, what will he cut? He wants to allow Oregonians to deduct their full federal tax from Oregon taxable income? Fine, is it education or health care that gets screwed? Sizemore would be dead in the water with a revenue neutrality requirement.
Sep 12, '07
Sal - I have a really hard time seeing the Oregon grassroots campaign that says "Hey we're going to gather the 130,000 signatures we need this year for a statutory ballot measure to make some good sound progressive law! But man we can't gather those first 1,000 to get assigned our ballot title, because that's too hard. If only we were a really well funded special interest to get those first 1,000, then the other 129,000 would come super easy, by golly."
Dude, I do see your point that old law said you only needed 25 signatures to file a ballot measure, so anyone could file a petition on their lunch break. But, the reality is that the 25 signature threshold has been used for ballot title shopping. The change from 25 to 1,000 was done at the request of the attorney general's office that felt they and the supreme court were being exploited to test language for a campaign's messaging, and this change may deter that.
But when asked about this when I was a witness for the House and Senate committees, I had no comment because this isn't really my area. I'm not saying whether the change from 25 to 1,000 is good or bad thing in principal, I don't really have an opinion. I'm just saying it does not inhibit a grass roots effort from pursuing a ballot measure campaign.
What I was testifying at the hearings and what I have been referring to in this string, is that the laws of 2082 as they effect a company like mine in Oregon, do not make it any more difficult to gather the signatures necessary for measure to earn ballot access(this year 100,000 valid for statutory/125,000 valid for constitutional). All they simply do is require that company's like myself keep accurate payroll records and have a trained staff.
And BTW Sal - never ever was there any proposal or public discussion regarding restrictions on public gathering locations, you said:
"The bit about locations got watered down in later versions."
There was never ever anything to water down. Dude, I followed these legislative hearings and committee discussion very closely and I really don't know where your getting your information from but its wrong.
And, come on Sal... "truthiness" please I don't need the BS cheap shots. I have a very fragile ego.
10:11 a.m.
Sep 12, '07
Ted is right about the reason for increase from 25 to 1,000 signatures in terms of the threshold to register a petition.
I believe I heard as well that petitioners like Sizemore were shopping for ballot titles filing 4 or 5 different petitions that were similar to see if they could get a title that was favorable to them.
7:51 p.m.
Sep 12, '07
I'm just saying it does not inhibit a grass roots effort from pursuing a ballot measure campaign.
The only purely grassroots efforts to file ballot initiatives in Oregon in recent years have been GMAO labeling and Health Care for All -- Oregon.
Neither of those campaigns would have had an easy time dealing with the 1000 signature threshhold.
Similarly, the campaign finance reform initiatives that I was a part of had to refile our statute in 2005 in order not to foul up Portland's Voter-Owned Elections. The 1000 signature threshhold would have prevented us from doing that.
In any case, I did not see an objection to my main critique, which has nothing to do with grassroots campaigning, but with the simple fact that these changes to Oregon law effectively take away the rights of individual citizens to file petitions and place those rights in the hands of groups that are already powerful.
I agree with David's comments about ballot title shopping, but in this case, I believe that the remedy, an erosion of our rights as citizens in this state, is worse than the disease.
Surely there are better ways to prevent ballot title shopping.
Sep 12, '07
Check out what the Public Comm. on the Legislature had to say on this subject. There were some really interesting discussions by people upset at how hard it is to track out of state money and organizers, esp. if one group contributes to another group which contributes to another group.
As I recall, the adult adoptee measure was a grass roots measure.
Sep 12, '07
Sal you have got to be kidding me about the 1,000 signatures. How many did you collect to run for office? I'm guessing more than 500. (unless you paid the fee) If one candidate can collect 500 why can't a true grassroots movement collect 1000?
Sep 12, '07
Why not simply require that petition circulators be Oregon registered voters? The only negative I see is that it would exclude Oregonians younger than 18.
1:21 a.m.
Sep 14, '07
Sal you have got to be kidding me about the 1,000 signatures. How many did you collect to run for office? I'm guessing more than 500.
If I recall correctly, I collected around 600 signatures, but paid to file since I could not guarantee that it would be enough to put me on the ballot. It took me probably 2 and a half months to collect that number canvassing, hosting events, and giving petitions to friends and supporters.
For an individual, collecting 1000 signatures in a non-professional capacity is a pretty herculean feat, representing, at a minimum, 100 hours of work.
I can count on 1 hand the number of volunteers who have collected 1000 signatures or more for any petition in the last 6 years for progressive causes in Oregon.
As I said earlier, these changes to Oregon law effectively take away the rights of individual citizens to file petitions and place those rights in the hands of groups that are already powerful.