Tuesday, April 05, 2011

A State of California legislature committee ignores citizen petitioning expertise in favor of passing an anti-petitioning bill on to the Appropriations Committee

The entire Citizens in Charge article, which offers reader commenting.
"This morning I testified at the California state capitol before the Public Safety Committee against SB 168 a bill aimed at banning payment per signature for petition circulators. Here is a clip about how the hearing went from the capitol grounds. Video:
 AKR at CA Capitol

I went on the record for Citizens in Charge and made the following points:
  • The supporters of SB 168 suggest that the bill is needed to combat fraud in the petition process. Yet, there is little evidence of fraud and absolutely no evidence that paying circulators “per signature” does anything to induce fraud or that laws which ban it do anything at all to mitigate fraud. 
  • Even if California had a serious problem with petition fraud, and obviously any fraud is too much, banning petition sponsors from paying circulators by the signature will do nothing to address the problem. Last year, in a lawsuit challenging a Colorado law similar to SB 168 (though far less severe), U.S. District Court Judge Philip Brimmer wrote in his order blocking enforcement of the law that, “pay-per-signature compensation is no more likely than pay-per-hour compensation to induce fraudulent signature gathering or to increase invalidity rates.” 
  • Passage of SB 168 is likely to lead to costly litigation that California can ill afford especially in the midst of our budget crisis. Challenges to bans on per signature payment of petition circulators are currently underway in Colorado, Nebraska and Oregon. While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld such a ban in an Oregon case, similar bans have been enjoined or overturned in Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Ohio and Washington. As recently as 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Ohio’s Secretary of State in Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters, effectively affirming the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to strike that state’s ban on pay-per-signature. 
  • Grassroots groups hoping to place a reform on the state ballot without the ability to pay their workers by the signature could face costs that are significantly higher – in some cases as much as double. While SB 168 may not deter the state’s most powerful or wealthy special interests, the higher costs will block the participation of grassroots groups and those less well-to-do. 
  • Lastly, as a representative of the only national organization dedicated to protecting the right to petition, I want to bring to this committee’s attention the fact that the original analysis on this legislation referred to people who circulate petitions as “bounty hunters.” That language serves to demean an entire group of overwhelmingly honest and hardworking citizens. It shows hostility to this process that is constitutionally protected. The term commonly, and more respectfully, used for these campaign workers is “petition circulator
In closing, I reiterated the fact that even if California did have a problem with petition fraud – and there is little evidence to show we do – Senate Bill 168 will do nothing to stop it. What it will do is reduce the rights of Californians, put grassroots groups at an even greater disadvantage versus well-funded special interests, and open up the state to costly litigation. As a Californian, I respectfully asked the committee members to do what is right for the citizens of our state and refuse to allow this bill out of their committee.

Although the Humane Society of the United States and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association also stood with Citizens in Charge in opposition to this bill, it was passed out of the Public Safety Committee to the Appropriations Committee."

This intelligent consultation by the nation's leader in petitioning government is proof that the committee didn't listen, as the bill subsequently passed that committee.  Truth be told, the committee members who voted for this attack on citizen petitioning didn't give a damn about Citizens in Charge's testimony, and the other attending petitioning organizations.  If the voters of these committee members' districts had known before Election Day that this kind of thing would happen, they surely wouldn't have voted them into office!

Remember, "voting turnout and activism means spreading the word!"

No comments:

Post a Comment