BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1203
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
SB 1203 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: May 6, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 22-5
SUBJECT : Elections.
SUMMARY : Requires a person who is paid to gather signatures on
an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to wear a badge
that indicates that he or she is paid and disclosing whether he
or she is registered to vote and if so, the county in which he
or she is registered to vote. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires an individual who receives compensation to circulate
an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to identify
himself or herself as a paid signature gatherer by wearing a
badge stating "PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER." Requires the badge
to identify the county in which the circulator is registered
to vote, or if the circulator is not registered to vote,
requires the badge to state "NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE."
2)Requires the print on a badge worn pursuant to this bill to be
no smaller than 30-point type.
EXISTING LAW requires every state or local initiative petition
to contain a statement notifying voters of their right to
inquire whether the petition is being circulated by a paid
signature gatherer or a volunteer.
FISCAL EFFECT : Keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author, "Voters should
have the right to know immediately whether a signature
gatherer is paid or not. Because of the way signature
gatherers are paid (on a per-signature basis), there are more
instances of fraud. SB 1203 will allow voters to know who is
truly a volunteer and who is not."
2)United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence : In 1988, the
United States Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado prohibition
SB 1203
Page 2
against the use of paid circulators for initiative petitions
violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Stevens noted that
"[t]he State's interest in protecting the integrity of the
initiative process does not justify the prohibition because
the State has failed to demonstrate that it is necessary to
burden appellees' ability to communicate their message in
order to meet its concerns." Meyer v. Grant (1988), 486 U.S.
414.
In 1999, the United States Supreme Court examined a Colorado law
that provided a number of other restrictions on the signature
collection process for ballot initiatives. In that case the
court ruled that there must be a compelling state interest to
justify any restrictions on initiative petition circulation.
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), 525
U.S. 182.
In Buckley , the court invalidated Colorado's requirement that
paid petition circulators wear a badge identifying themselves
and identifying that they are paid circulators. The court
stated that the requirement to wear badges inhibits
participation in the petitioning process. "Because the badge
requirement compels personal name identification at the
precise moment when the circulator's interest in anonymity is
greatest, it does not qualify for inclusion among 'the more
limited [election process] identification requirement[s]."
The Buckley court did not rule on the validity of the
requirement that a circulator wear a badge stating whether a
petition circulator was paid or a volunteer.
3)Legislative Counsel Opinion : In an April 17, 2001 opinion,
Legislative Counsel opined that a statute to require an
individual circulating a petition to disclose (verbally or by
a sign, pin, badge, hat, or other indication) whether the
individual is paid to circulate the petition is valid under
the California and United States Constitutions. In its
analysis, Legislative Counsel wrote "in our view the
disclosure of the paid or unpaid status of the petition
circulator at the time of circulation properly may be
characterized as the least drastic means to accomplish the
substantial state interest of enabling potential petition
signers to assess the sincerity of circulators."
4)Arguments in Support : In support of this bill, the State
SB 1203
Page 3
Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, writes:
The initiative process was created as an outlet for the
expression of the public to bypass the special interests
who had California's government firmly in their grip. What
a difference a century makes! Now the initiative process
has been hijacked by today's special interests wielding
millions of dollars and hiring petition signers to rewrite
our State's Constitution and statutes. The citizens gain
by knowing whether a signature gatherer is being paid and
may decide to gather more information before signing an
initiative petition. Openness and honesty is the right
policy. The murky business of signature gatherers and
initiatives deserves sunshine.
5)Arguments in Opposition : According to the Governor's Office
of Planning and Research:
Many Californians have felt the need to take matters into
their own hands by way of the initiative route. Placing a
stigma on signature gatherers by making them wear "scarlet
letter" badges would accomplish nothing other than to
discourage people from participating in the initiative
process and to raise the cost of qualifying measures for
the ballot. Furthermore, the initiative process is
cherished by the people of California, and the Legislature
should refrain from placing any unnecessary burdens upon
it. This bill would place a roadblock on that route and
thereby thwart the power of Californians to be engaged in
the democratic process and to attempt to bring about what
they feel is important political change.
6)Previous Legislation : AB 738 (Nation) of 2005 was similar to
this bill, except that it did not require a circulator's badge
to indicate whether the circulator was registered to vote and,
if so, the county in which the circulator was registered to
vote. AB 738 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who
argued that the bill was unnecessary because petitions are
already required to inform voters that the circulator may be a
volunteer or may be paid, and that the voter has the right to
ask.
AB 738 was similar to SB 725 (Scott) of 2001 and SB 1219
(Schiff) of 1999, both of which were vetoed by Governor Davis,
and to SB 1979 (Schiff) of 1998, which was vetoed by Governor
SB 1203
Page 4
Wilson.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
Opposition
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094