Tightening Up the Initiative Process
Jeff Alworth
Yesterday, the Oregon House approved a number of changes to Oregon's initiative system. Briefly, the bill:
- Gives the secretary of state the legal tools to prohibit someone from registering as a paid signature-gatherer if convicted of fraud, forgery or identity theft.
- Allows the secretary of state to conduct background checks to check the criminal history of prospective signature gatherers.
- Requires petitioners to turn in original signature sheets once per month, providing more time for elections officials to process sheets and more time for petitioners to address problems.
- Allows the secretary of state to impose a civil penalty while a criminal investigation is under way.
- Authorizes the secretary of state to pull petitions collected by a circulator who has violated the law.
- Makes chief petitioners liable when they should have known that a circulator broke the law, applying common legal standards that hold people at the top accountable for actions of their employees.
Originally a progressive mechanism to ensure voters could directly change the laws under which they were governed, the initiative process has lately been the tool of professional signature gatherers like Bill Sizemore. The legislature spends a greater and greater amount of its time working around or trying to fix a patchwork of ideologically driven, poorly conceived--and often expensive--voter-passed initiatives. So a tune-up on the 107-year-old law was definitely in order.
But here's the question: will these changes correct the bulk of the problems, or will they strengthen professionals and make it all the more difficult for ordinary citizens to pass grassroots laws?
 |
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
May 20, '09
To be clear on the changes,
The law already prohibits those convicted of fraud, forgery or identity theft from being paid to circulate petitions for 5 years after conviction.
The SoS already performs background checks on paid petition circulators.
The SoS has not stated that they will actually start processing petition sheets even if they get them on a regular turn-in basis. Petitioners will not be able to "address problems" since they are turned in to the SoS and immutable property of the state at that point.
Does imposing civil penalties before an investigation has been completed sound like a good idea? If you were under investigation for a crime, shouldn't you be charged before going to jail? Amounts to guilty until proven innocent in my book.
What level of "violated the law" rises to the level of requiring the state to destroy the signatures and will of registered voters of Oregon?
Would love to hear a definition of "Should have known."
Jeff, what are the "bulk of the problems" with the initiative process? I am not a fan of most Sizemore sponsored initiatives, but I defend the right of anyone to use the citizens initiative process to redress wrongs and propose change. One should be a little less cavalier when proposing a restriction on the rights of citizens to petition their government.
2:54 p.m.
May 20, '09
I doubt that it will make a true volunteer effort more odious. My concern is that it is still way to easy to put constitutional measures on the ballot. Changing the constitution should have a much higher bar.
5:10 p.m.
May 20, '09
Progvoice, I would say the function of the initiative process right now is exactly the opposite of what we intended. Instead of being a voice for the people, it's a tool that wealthy interests use to subvert democracy. Guys like Sizemore are only mildly interested in passing their hairbrained measures--what they really want to do is force progressive groups to spend millions to defeat them. In the last cycle, we had one guy, not even an Oregonian, funding many truly terrible measures. Is that what the progressives at the turn of the 20th Century wanted? Hardly.
May 20, '09
David Broder is normally an idiot Villager, the ultimate stenographer to power. Still, he wrote a pretty good book on the ills of the modern, money-captured initiative system, "Democracy Derailed." Food for thought especially for people who like the idea of initiative and referendum but increasingly find that the theory and the practice are diverging so much that one has to question the value of the theory . . .
May 20, '09
I don't know that these new changes will really stop the "Initiative Idustry" that we have here in Oregon. They have the money and the time to learn and adapt (it is, of course, there business and livlihood). What if it was mandated that all initiatives have to come from a 100% volunteer force. Not sure of the constitutionality of that one but to me that would be the obvious deterrent in cleaning up our current system.
May 20, '09
Good process but maybe a bad law; it will begin to suffocate the process, and then additional legislation to rectify the problems will kill it. When a citizen creates and writes a petition to change the constitution or laws of this state they hopefully will educate themselves as to what it is they want to accomplish. For most people that can be very intimidating. Trying to get them to do criminal background checks on their signature gatherers ??? Have you ever tried to do this yourself? Organizations can probably do this but can individuals get the access to public/private data like this bill asks for? I have to agree with progvoice's comments.
May 20, '09
Marshall, there is the question of the court decision which said it was illegal to prevent paid petitioners.
This might well do some good in a time when the pendulum is swinging towards regulation.
And I don't buy the "ganging up on conservatives" talking points. Get Dan Meek, Lloyd Marbet, Don McIntire and Russ Walker (to name people who I don't believe have any adverse court sanctions against them at the moment) in a room and ask them what they think of bills like this. My guess is they will all be angry--they see it as their mission in life to give us more measures to vote on than a fully employed person has the time to read.
As I recall, there may also be a training component.
Back in the days when paid petitioners were not legal, petition circulators would often have one petition they were willing to answer questions about.
These regulations and the others (like the court decision on how a business can stop petitioners from blockading the front of a store so that customers needed to run a gauntlet even to go shopping) came mostly because of the anger of ordinary citizens.
The initiativemeisters need to go out in the real world and get real jobs. The umpteen measures in 2000, the Mannix measures where circulators would say "I can't answer any questions but you should sign this", and other excesses were because the petition industry did not police their own. The response was tighter regulation. I believe it is common sense. And if you say it is "more government regulation", please let me know what measures you are behind for 2010 and I will make sure not to sign them.
May 20, '09
How about if the signature gatherers were required to be registered voters in Oregon? Would that be legal/constitutional? At least they'd have some buy-in to the results of what they're circulating.
10:14 p.m.
May 20, '09
Originally a progressive mechanism to ensure voters could directly change the laws under which they were governed, the initiative process has lately been the tool of professional signature gatherers like Bill Sizemore.
Progvoice, I would say the function of the initiative process right now is exactly the opposite of what we intended. Instead of being a voice for the people, it's a tool that wealthy interests use to subvert democracy.
To be fair, I think you're over-idealizing the establishment of the initiative system in Oregon a little bit. Really, the I&R was established by a guy who wanted to use the initiative to pass his own tax agenda and circumvent the legislature. Of course, back then his name was William U'Ren and he wanted to pass the single tax (as opposed to Bill Sizemore and no taxes). So it's hardly a surprise how things have turned out.
May 21, '09
Before I comment I'd like to read the entire bill. Anyone got a link to it?
May 21, '09
Never mind. The link to the bill is right next door to this article. DOH!
May 21, '09
The initiative process is not going to be "fixed" anytime soon by these regressive restrictions. Truly, the power to 'fix' the initiative process has always been in the hands of Oregonians. I have been asking petition gatherers for the past 8 years if they are paid. If the answer is yes, I politely decline signing; regardless the apparent wortiness of the initiative.
Unfortunately, these restrictions could well make it more difficult for real Oregon based initiatives to get on the ballot.
May 21, '09
It doesn't seem to me this bill is getting at the root of the problem, which is that direct democracy is a Bad Thing. The average voter has neither the resources nor time to research the implications of a ballot measure, so most of them simply follow the recommendations of their favorite newspaper or interest group, or succumb to the advertising of whoever raises the most money on the question.
The bar should be set much higher; i.e. requiring many more signatures to put measures on the ballot. Also we should put in place the legislative review process currently being discussed.
For those who distrust our elected representatives, I agree the existing campaign finance system doesn't work very well, and that the moneyed lobby has too much influence statewide and nationally. But the answer isn't to simply give these same folks another bite at the apple through ballot measures, but instead to reduce their influence on the election and behavior of representatives. Not easy, but worth the effort.
May 21, '09
Wouldn't it just be easier/better/cheaper if we just banned the iniative process? This charade of putting one hurdle after another in front of collecting signatures for iniatives is taking a lot of everyone's time.
After all these things just get in the way of our leaders who do know more than us about what's better for all of us. I think that letting them continue their job in total ignorance of what goes on in the outside world makes for a much better result.
May 22, '09
More tinkering to avoid the need for a parliamentary democracy. I think it's good tinkering, though, if you're going to do that.
8:28 a.m.
May 25, '09
Sorry but the bill merely tinkers around the remotest edges of the real problem. The real problem is that Oregon's initiative system is nothing more than mob rule. It supports the wacky and the greedy and it condones unconstitutionality. The system has to be tightened up very considerably. Those in the legislature who merely tinker and then pat themselves just expose themselves as utterly vacant.