BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 168|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 168
Author: Corbett (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & C. A. COMMITTEE : 3-2, 3/15/11
AYES: Correa, De León, Lieu
NOES: La Malfa, Gaines
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Petitions: compensation for signatures
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill makes it a misdemeanor for a person to
pay or to receive money or any other thing of value based
on the number of signatures collected on a state or local
initiative, referendum, or recall petition.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Provides that a voter or a person who is qualified to
register to vote in this state may circulate an
initiative, referendum petition or recall petition as
specified.
2. Does not prohibit a person from paying or receiving
CONTINUED
SB 168
Page
2
money for the circulation of petitions for signatures
nor does it prohibit paying or receiving payment based
on the number of signatures gathered.
3. Requires that state or local initiative petitions must
contain the following notice in 12-point type:
"NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE
GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK."
This bill makes it a misdemeanor for a person to pay or to
receive money or any other thing of value based on the
number of signatures collected on a state or local
initiative, referendum, or recall petition. Specifically,
this bill:
1. Provides that a person or organization who pays a person
based on the number of signatures obtained on a state or
local initiative, referendum, or recall petition shall
be punished by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or
by both that fine and imprisonment.
2. Provides that a person who is paid based on the number
of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative,
referendum, or recall petition shall be punished by a
fine not to exceed $1,000, or by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed six months, or by both that
fine and imprisonment.
3. States that this bill does not prohibit the payment for
signature gathering not based, either directly or
indirectly, on the number of signatures obtained on a
state or local initiative, referendum, or recall
petition.
Background
Bounty Hunters . To qualify an initiative to be placed on
the statewide ballot, proponents must gather hundreds of
thousands of signatures. The need to collect this large
number of signatures within a limited timeframe has given
rise to an industry of petition management firms that pay
CONTINUED
SB 168
Page
3
signature gatherers a bounty based on the number of
signatures they collect.
The individuals who are paid to collect signatures on
initiative, referendum, or recall petitions are commonly
referred to as "bounty hunters." According to the
Secretary of State's Election Fraud Investigation Unit
(EFIU), between 1994 and 2010, the EFIU opened 240 cases
for falsifying petitions resulting in 33 convictions.
Other States . According to the National Conference of
State Legislatures, it is common for initiative sponsors to
pay circulators on a per-signature basis to gather petition
signatures. Payments typically range from $1 to $3 per
signature, and occasionally are as high as $10 per
signature. Critics argue that this encourages fraud --
since a circulator who collects more signatures will earn
more money, circulators who are paid per signature are more
likely to commit acts of fraud such as forging signatures
or misrepresenting the content of the petition in order to
encourage people to sign.
In three states (North Dakota, Oregon, and Wyoming),
initiative sponsors are banned from paying petition
circulators per signature. Instead, they may pay a flat
fee or an hourly wage. These laws have been challenged in
the courts with mixed results. North Dakota and Oregon's
provisions have been upheld by the United States Ninth and
Eighth Circuit Courts, respectively. However, similar
provisions in Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, and Washington
were held unconstitutional by federal district courts.
Prior Legislation
SB 34 (Corbett, 2010) - Vetoed
SB 1686 (Denham, 2008) - Vetoed
SB 1047 (Bowen, 2006) - Held in Assembly Elections &
Reapportionment
AB 2946 (Leno, 2006) - Vetoed
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/3/11)
CONTINUED
SB 168
Page
4
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center
California Labor Federation
California Professional Firefighters
City of Murrieta
Contra Costa County
Secretary of State Debra Bowen
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/4/11)
Ballot Access News
California Chamber of Commerce - in their letter, the
Chamber indicated the following groups were opposed:
American Council of Engineering Companies of
California
Associated General Contractors of California
Association of California Life and Health Insurance
Companies
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California New Car Dealers Association
California Retailers Association
California Taxpayers Association
Culver City Chamber of Commerce
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce and
Convention-Visitors Bureau
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
Southwest California Legislative Council
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Western Growers Association
Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
CONTINUED
SB 168
Page
5
Citizens in Charge
Humane Society
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "Some
signature gathering firms compensate circulators based on
the number of signatures they collect. Some circulators
reach the deadline to qualify initiatives by illegally
misinforming voters and forging names. Circulators forged
signatures onto their petitions of names they chose from a
phonebook in several states. Others have inserted carbon
paper and a second petition beneath the original one,
without the persons' knowledge, to get their signature on
another petition. This bill upholds the integrity of the
initiative process by making it a misdemeanor to pay or
receive money or compensation based on the number of
signatures obtained on a state or local initiative,
referendum, or recall petition. Signature gathering firms
who violate this provision would be subject to a fine of up
to $25,000 and/or up to one year in county jail.
Circulators would be subject to up to $1,000 in fines
and/or up to six months in jail."
In support, Secretary of State Debra Bowen states: "Paying
signature gatherers by signature may create an incentive to
lie or mislead voters as to what they are really signing.
Therefore, this measure has the potential to decrease
fraudulent signature gathering practices."
The Sierra Club California, also in support, states: "We
have too often seen the direct-democracy process perverted
by wealthy special interests who buy their way onto the
ballot by paying signature-gatherers a bounty based on the
number of signatures they collect, an arrangement that
encourages fraud."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Chamber of
Commerce states: "SB 168 denies the check and balance on
the legislative branch by the public by limiting the use of
paid signature gathers critical for successfully sponsoring
a referendum. It appears that the goal of SB 168 is to
prevent voter-registration fraud and ensure that voters get
better information when petitioners approach them. While
this is a worthy goal, SB 168 would have the unintended
consequence of limiting the public's role in the ballot
CONTINUED
SB 168
Page
6
process. By outlawing payment for signature collection on
a per signature basis, SB 168 would make it prohibitively
expensive to do an
initiative or a recall and next to impossible to do a
referendum. Furthermore, it is unclear how limiting the
payment type for signatures will ensure that the public
will receive better information when petitioners approach
them. Indeed, SB 168 is likely to limit how far and wide
these important election materials are disseminated - and
even exclude certain areas - as petitioners attempt to
reach as many California voters as possible.
The current process serves as a check and balance on
government. By making it harder to qualify ballot measures
you are denying Californians the right to address
grievances with government through initiatives, referendums
and recalls."
DLW:mw 5/5/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED