BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 857
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 857 (Fong) - As Amended: April 15, 2013
SUBJECT : Initiatives: petition circulators.
SUMMARY : Makes numerous significant changes to provisions of
state law governing initiatives and referenda. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Requires at least 20 percent of the signatures collected to
qualify a proposed state initiative measure for the ballot to
be collected by individuals who did not receive money or other
valuable consideration exclusively or primarily for the
specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors on the
petition, as specified ("20 percent requirement").
a) Provides that signatures on a petition qualify toward
meeting the 20 percent requirement if they are collected by
a person who is an employee or member of a non-profit
organization, other than an organization in the business of
soliciting signatures on initiative petitions, who receives
money or other valuable consideration from the organization
and as part of that employment or membership solicits
signatures for the qualification of an initiative measure,
unless a primary purpose of that employment or membership
is to solicit signatures on an initiative petition.
Defines "member" for the purposes of this provision.
b) Provides that signatures solicited by registered voters
or employees of a political party who receive money or
other valuable consideration from the political party for
soliciting signatures on an initiative petition do not
qualify toward meeting the 20 percent requirement.
c) Provides that signatures solicited through direct mail
do not count towards the 20 percent requirement unless the
person soliciting the signatures through direct mail, and
every other person who organizes, pays, or arranges for the
direct mail, is eligible to solicit signatures that qualify
toward meeting the 20 percent requirement, as described
above. Provides that this provision shall not preclude an
organization that has a primary purpose other than
AB 857
Page 2
soliciting signatures on initiative petitions from
soliciting signatures from its members through direct mail
and relying on those signatures for the purposes of
satisfying the 20 percent requirement.
d) Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to
preclude signatures that are solicited by a person who
receives nominal, non-monetary benefits, including food,
transportation, or lodging, from qualifying toward meeting
the 20 percent requirement.
2)Requires a petition for a proposed state initiative measure
that is circulated by a person such that it will qualify
toward meeting the 20 percent requirement to be printed on
white paper in a contrasting color ink. Requires other
petitions for such a measure to be printed on yellow paper in
a contrasting color ink.
3)Requires a petition for a proposed state initiative measure
that is circulated by a person such that it will not qualify
toward meeting the 20 percent requirement to include all of
the following:
a) Immediately prior to the portion of the petition for
voters' signatures, the following language printed in
18-point boldface type:
"WARNING TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION IS BEING CIRCULATED BY
A PERSON PAID TO OBTAIN YOUR SIGNATURE. READ THE CONTENTS
OF THIS PETITION BEFORE SIGNING."
b) Immediately following the warning identified above, a
disclosure statement, in 14-point boldface type, that
includes the following language:
"The political committee paying for this petition to be
circulated is (insert full name of committee).
The following donors have contributed $50,000 or more to the
(insert full name of committee) within six months of the
printing of this petition: (insert name of each of the top
three donors who have contributed $50,000 or more and, if
an individual, his or her occupation and the identity of
his or her employer)."
AB 857
Page 3
c) Requires, if the information for the disclosure
statement changes, that the statement be updated within 14
days.
4)Requires a person who solicits signatures on a petition that
qualify toward meeting the 20 percent requirement to sign an
affidavit that declares all of the following:
a) That the person did not receive money or other valuable
consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting
signatures of electors pursuant to the requirements of this
bill;
b) That to the best of his or her knowledge, the signatures
on the petition sections circulated by him or her should be
counted towards the 20 percent requirement;
c) The person's current place of permanent residence; and,
d) If the person is not a resident of the state, a
statement that he or she consents to the jurisdiction of
the state and service of process for any legal action for
the purposes of an investigation or prosecution by any
state or local agency regarding the validity of the
signatures submitted by that person.
5)Makes corresponding changes to the process for elections
officials to verify signatures submitted on a state initiative
petition.
6)Requires each section of a petition for a proposed state
initiative measure to bear a unique identifying number.
7)Repeals a requirement that a person must be a voter or
qualified to register to vote in the state in order to
circulate an initiative or referendum petition.
8)Prohibits a person from paying another person to solicit
signatures on a state initiative or referendum petition, and
prohibits a person from being paid to solicit signatures on a
state initiative or referendum petition, unless the person
soliciting the signatures registers with the Secretary of
State (SOS) and completes a training program. Provides that a
person who is an employee or member of a nonprofit
organization, other than an organization in the business of
AB 857
Page 4
soliciting signatures on initiative or referendum petitions,
who receives money or other valuable consideration from the
organization and as part of that employment or membership
solicits signatures for the qualification of an initiative or
referendum measure, shall not be required to register or
complete the training program, unless a primary purpose of
that employment or membership is to solicit signatures on an
initiative or referendum petition.
a) Requires a person who is required to register with the
SOS to file an application that includes all of the
following:
i) The applicant's full name and any assumed name;
ii) The applicant's residential street address;
iii) An example of the applicant's signature;
iv) A list of the initiative or referendum petitions for
which the applicant will solicit signatures;
v) If the applicant has been convicted of a criminal
offense involving fraud, forgery, identification theft,
or a violation of the Elections Code, information
relating to the circumstances of the conviction, as
required by the SOS;
vi) A statement signed by the applicant that he or she
has read and understands the applicable laws pertaining
to the soliciting of signatures for an initiative or
referendum measure;
vii) Proof that the applicant has completed the required
training;
viii) A photograph of the applicant, as specified; and,
ix) If the applicant is not a resident of the state, a
statement that he or she consents to the jurisdiction of
the state and service of process for any legal action for
the purposes of an investigation or prosecution by any
state or local agency regarding the validity of the
signatures submitted by that person.
AB 857
Page 5
b) Requires the application to be signed under penalty of
perjury.
c) Provides that if an applicant complies with the
registration requirements specified above, the SOS shall
register the applicant and assign the applicant a
registration number within five days.
d) Requires the SOS to deny the registration of a person
who has been convicted of a criminal offense involving
fraud, forgery, or identification theft in any state, or a
violation of the Elections Code, during the five-year
period prior to the date of the application.
e) Requires a person registered pursuant to these
provisions to wear a badge provided by the proponent of the
measure that evidences a person's registration when the
person is soliciting signatures on the petition. Requires
the badge to contain the person's photograph and
registration number, and requires the SOS to prescribe the
form of the badge by regulation.
f) Provides that a person's registration as a petition
circulator is effective for two years. Requires the
registrant to amend his or her application to reflect any
changes within 10 days, and prior to circulating any
petition that was not previously included on the
registration as a petition that the person would be
circulating.
g) Requires the SOS to revoke the registration of a person
who, in the course of circulating an initiative or
referendum petition, engages in fraud, misrepresentation,
or other specified conduct prohibited by the Elections
Code.
h) Requires the SOS to establish a training program that
includes, but is not limited to, instruction to circulators
regarding how to avoid fraud, misrepresentation, and other
misconduct during the circulation of petitions and
instruction on compliance with, and the consequences for
violations of, the requirements of these provisions.
9)Provides that if a person was not registered as a petition
circulator pursuant to this bill at the time that person
AB 857
Page 6
solicited signatures on a petition, but was required to be
registered at that time for the purposes of that petition, the
signatures presented on the petitions or sections of the
petition circulated by that person shall not count toward
qualifying that measure for the ballot.
10)Requires the proponent of an initiative or referendum measure
who pays a circulator who is required to be registered
pursuant to this bill to keep detailed accounts, as specified.
Provides that "accounts," for these purposes, means all of
the following:
a) Contracts between the proponent and petition
circulators;
b) Employment manuals and training materials provided to
petition circulators;
c) Payroll records for each petition circulator showing
hours worked, number of signatures collected, and amounts
paid;
d) Records identifying the amount and purpose of payments
made by the proponent to any contractor or subcontractor
soliciting signatures; and,
e) Copies of petition sections circulated by registered
circulators.
11)Requires the SOS to review the accounts of initiative and
referendum proponents, as specified, according to a regular
schedule.
12)Provides that if the proponent of a measure does not produce
accounts upon demand of the SOS, there is a rebuttable
presumption that the signatures were gathered in violation of
the law and cannot be used to qualify the measure for the
ballot. Prohibits the proponent from soliciting additional
signatures on the petition until the proponent makes the
accounts available to the SOS for inspection.
13)Provides that a state initiative or referendum petition
section is invalid if the signatures are solicited and
submitted by a person who engages in fraud, misrepresentation,
or other illegal conduct concerning the circulation of the
AB 857
Page 7
petition, as specified. Provides that the SOS or any elector
may enforce this provision by a civil action in which the
plaintiff has the burden of showing a violation by clear and
convincing evidence.
14)Provides that the provisions of this bill shall take effect
on January 1, 2014, and shall apply to any initiative or
referendum petition for which the Attorney General issued a
circulating title and summary on or after October 1, 2013.
15)Makes various findings and declarations about the initiative
process and the influence that special interests and paid
circulators have on that process.
16)Makes corresponding changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows electors to propose statutes and amendments to the
Constitution and to adopt or reject them through the
initiative process.
2)Requires that a state or local initiative petition contain a
notice alerting voters that the petition may be circulated by
a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer, and that voters have
the right to ask if a petition circulator is a paid gatherer
or volunteer.
3)Establishes penalties for fraudulent activity related to
signature gathering.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
In 1911, as part of the Progressive movement,
California voters amended the state Constitution to
reserve for themselves the power of the initiative,
because powerful, out-of-state interests exercised a
corrupting influence over state politics.
Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, the original
AB 857
Page 8
intent of the initiative process has been undermined,
and the initiative has become one of the favorite
tools of well-financed special interest groups.
Voters recognize that the ability of an initiative's
proponents to gather the necessary signatures to
qualify a measure for the ballot is not a function of
whether there is broad-based community support for a
proposed measure, as originally intended, but rather
depends on the amount of money that a proponent is
willing to spend to place the proposal on the ballot.
When the initiative process was first created, it was
envisioned that petitions would be circulated by
volunteers and grassroots organizations that supported
the proposed law. But in the late 1970s, the
signature gathering process became a professional
undertaking, and a number of professional signature
gathering firms were created. Since the 1990s, most
initiative measures have relied primarily on paid
signature gatherers to qualify for the ballot, and no
state initiative measure has qualified for the ballot
using only volunteer signature gatherers since 1990.
Too often, those paid signature gatherers have used
fraud and deceit to gather the signatures needed to
qualify measures for the ballot, or have forged
signatures on petitions. Since 1994, there have been
dozens of convictions for fraudulent signature
gathering, and most (if not all) of those convictions
have been of paid signature gatherers. In fact, a
2008 study by the Center for Governmental Studies
found no known cases in California of volunteer
signature gatherers submitting fraudulent signatures.
At the same time, proposed initiative measures with
true grassroots support have continued to have success
in collecting large numbers of signatures using
volunteer signature gatherers. In 2008, proponents of
Proposition 2 gathered half a million signatures using
volunteer signature gatherers.
AB 857 preserves the original intent of the initiative
process by ensuring that proposed initiative measures
have broad-based community support in order to qualify
to appear on the ballot. To achieve that goal, AB 857
AB 857
Page 9
requires at least 20 percent of the signatures
gathered to qualify a state initiative for the ballot
to be collected by grassroots signature gatherers.
Additionally, AB 857 helps ensure that measures do not
qualify for the ballot due to fraudulent activity by
signature gatherers by prohibiting fraudulently
collected signatures from being used to qualify a
measure for the ballot. Finally, AB 857 helps protect
the integrity of the initiative process by requiring
paid signature gatherers to undergo training and to
register with the Secretary of State, and by
prohibiting people convicted of fraud or other
elections crimes from being paid to collect signatures
on initiative petitions for a period of five years.
2)20 Percent Signature Requirement : Under the provisions of
this bill, in order for a state initiative measure to qualify
for the ballot, at least 20 percent of the signatures gathered
on the petition for that measure would have to be collected on
petition sections that were circulated by a person who does
not receive money or other valuable consideration exclusively
or primarily for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures
of electors on the petition, as specified. This "20 percent
requirement" does not apply to state referendum or recall
petitions, nor does it apply to local initiatives, referenda,
or recalls.
While signatures collected by volunteers will count toward
meeting this 20 percent requirement, the language of the bill
does not require the signatures to be gathered by volunteers
in order to qualify to meet the 20 percent requirement.
Instead, in certain circumstances, signatures collected by
individuals who were paid for their time could count toward
meeting the 20 percent requirement provided that the person
wasn't paid exclusively or primarily for the specific purpose
of soliciting signatures. This bill provides that signatures
will count toward the 20 percent requirement if they are
collected by employees and members of nonprofit organizations
who receive compensation from that organization and solicit
signatures as a part of their employment or membership, as
long as the nonprofit organization is not primarily focused on
soliciting signatures on petitions. In the case of signatures
solicited by direct mail, those signatures would apply toward
the 20 percent requirement if the person soliciting the
signatures through direct mail and all persons that organize,
AB 857
Page 10
pay for, and arrange the direct mail are persons who were
eligible to solicit signatures that counted toward the 20
percent requirement. Additionally, signatures solicited by
direct mail would count toward the 20 percent requirement if
they are collected by an organization that is soliciting
signatures through direct mail from its members, as long as
the organization has a primary purpose other than collecting
signatures.
In 1988, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado
prohibition 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. It could be argued that the 20 percent
requirement imposed by this bill could be susceptible to a
court challenge in light of the United States Supreme Court's
ruling in Meyer . However, the 20 percent requirement in this
bill is distinguishable from the law struck down in Meyer in a
number of different ways, and thus may be more likely to
withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Unlike the law considered by the court in Meyer , the 20 percent
requirement in this bill does not apply to all signatures
gathered to qualify a measure for the ballot, but only a
portion of the signatures. Furthermore, as discussed above,
the signatures that are gathered to meet that 20 percent
requirement do not necessarily have to be collected by
individuals who are unpaid if they are gathered by members and
employees of a nonprofit organization in furtherance of that
nonprofit's objectives. These provisions are designed to help
ensure that initiative measures that qualify for the ballot
have sufficient grassroots support, while still providing
significant flexibility for proponents of initiative measures
to gather the necessary number of signatures.
Additionally, there is reason to believe that changes in the
initiative process since the Meyer decision may undercut a key
rationale used by the court in striking down Colorado's law.
The Meyer court held that Colorado's interest in making sure
that an initiative had sufficient grassroots support to be
AB 857
Page 11
placed on the ballot did not justify the prohibition on the
use of paid signature gatherers because it found that interest
was "adequately protected by the requirement that no
initiative proposal may be placed upon the ballot unless the
required number of signatures has been obtained." But this
bill questions whether the signature requirement, in and of
itself, still serves as a sufficient barometer of grassroots
support for a measure, finding that "[w]hether an initiative
measure qualifies for the ballot no longer depends upon how
much the state's voters truly support the proposed law but,
rather, depends on how much money a proponent is willing to
spend to place the proposal on the ballot." This bill further
finds that "the presence of an initiative on the ballot is no
longer viewed as an expression of a minimum amount of public
support but, rather, the willingness of a special interest to
pay a sufficient number of petition circulators to use
whatever means necessary to qualify the initiative measure for
the ballot." Research in 2008 by the now-closed Center for
Governmental Studies (CGS) supports these findings, suggesting
that over time, the signature requirement has morphed from
being a measure of the level of grassroots support for an
initiative to instead being a measure of the amount of money
that proponents are willing to spend to qualify a measure for
the ballot. In its 2008 report, "Democracy by Initiative:
Shaping California's Fourth Branch of Government, Second
Edition," CGS wrote:
For the last few decades, the most important factor
determining whether an initiative will qualify for the
ballot has been the amount of money spent on petition
circulation. In the late 1970s, a gap began to grow
between the amount of money spent on successful and
unsuccessful attempts to qualify initiatives. Prior to
the upsurge in ballot qualification costs that began
with the 1978 general election, expenditures on
petition circulation for both successful and
unsuccessful efforts were reasonably close.
While expenditures on unballoted initiatives have
barely risen, the amount of money spent on successful
qualification efforts has increased exponentially. In
the early 1990s, ballot qualification could reasonably
be assured at a cost of $500,000 and guaranteed at a
price tag of $1 million or more. Some initiatives had
managed to qualify spending less, and, throughout the
AB 857
Page 12
entire history of California's initiative process,
only two initiative proposals that spent as much as
$500,000 on qualification efforts failed to make it to
the ballot. Proponents of 10 of the 50 balloted
initiatives from 1984 through 1990 spent under
$500,000 for qualification, while 24 campaigns spent
over $1 million. By contrast, the vast majority of the
39 campaigns for balloted initiatives between 2000 and
2006 spent more than $1 million on qualification, and
16 spent over $2 million. The fact that ballot access
can be so reliably measured in terms of dollars rather
than degree of public concern clearly runs counter to
the original intent of the initiative process?. Money,
rather than breadth or intensity of popular support,
has become the primary threshold for determining
ballot qualification.
3)Registration and Training of Paid Signature Gatherers & Badge
Requirement : This bill requires individuals who receive
compensation for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures
on an initiative or referendum petition to register with the
SOS and complete a training program designed by the SOS. The
training program would focus primarily on instructing
circulators about the requirements of state law when
circulating petitions, while the registration requirements
appear to be designed primarily to assist in the enforcement
of this bill and of other provisions of state law. This bill
additionally requires individuals who receive compensation for
the specific purpose of soliciting signatures on an initiative
or referendum petition, when circulating a petition, to wear a
badge that contains the person's photograph and registration
number.
In 1999, the United States Supreme Court examined a Colorado law
that provided a number of 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 badges identifying themselves
and identifying that they are paid circulators. The court
stated that the requirement to wear badges inhibits
AB 857
Page 13
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.
It could be argued that this bill's requirements for certain
circulators to wear a badge could be susceptible to a court
challenge in light of the ruling in Buckley . Unlike the badge
required by the Colorado law at issue in Buckley , however, the
badge required by this bill does not "compel personal name
identification," or otherwise compromise the anonymity of the
circulator because it does not require the circulator's name
to appear on the badge. Instead, the badge would contain a
photograph of the circulator and that circulator's
registration number issued by the SOS. Requiring circulators
to wear this badge can help facilitate enforcement of this
bill's provisions and of existing law by allowing voters who
are asked to sign a petition to verify that the person
circulating the petition is registered in accordance with the
law, and to report any misconduct by petition circulators by
referencing the registration number of a circulator who
violates the law. Because the badge required by this bill
helps facilitate enforcement of the state's laws governing the
initiative process while maintaining the anonymity of the
circulator, the badge requirement in this bill would appear to
be on firmer ground than the badge requirement in question in
Buckley .
4)Invalidation of Signatures : Existing law generally is silent
on the issue of whether violations of state law prohibiting
improper signature-gathering tactics will result in the
signatures on those petitions being invalidated. In at least
one case, however, a court invalidated signatures gathered to
qualify an initiative for the ballot due to improper
signature-gathering tactics by the proponents of the measure.
In San Francisco Forty-Niners v. Nishioka (1999), 75
Cal.App.4th 637, the California Court of Appeals for the First
District, Division One, prohibited an initiative measure from
appearing on the ballot because the initiative petition
included false statements intended to mislead voters, in
violation of Section 18600 of the Elections Code. In this
AB 857
Page 14
case, the false statements appeared on the text of the
petition itself. As a result, every person who was asked to
sign the petition was exposed to these false statements that
were intended to mislead voters.
In a case where petition circulators make false or misleading
statements about a proposed ballot measure, or engage in other
illegal signature-gathering tactics in an attempt to get
voters to sign a petition, it is unclear whether that
misconduct can result in signatures being invalidated.
Committee staff is not aware of any court cases that have
addressed this issue.
This bill explicitly provides that signatures on a petition
section shall be deemed invalid if the signatures were
solicited and submitted by a person who engages in fraud,
misrepresentation, or other improper signature-gathering
tactics, as specified. In order for signatures to be
invalidated under this provision, the SOS or an elector would
have to file a civil action, and would have the burden of
showing a violation by clear and convincing evidence.
This bill additionally provides that signatures are invalid if
they are gathered by a person who receives money or other
valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting
signatures if that person was not registered as required by
this bill at the time those signatures were gathered.
5)Non-Resident Circulators : In 2008, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Nader v. Brewer (2008),
531 F.3d 1028, that it was unconstitutional for states to
prevent non-residents from circulating petitions. In 2009,
the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case on
appeal, so the Ninth Circuit opinion still stands.
In the latter half of 2012, a number of California counties were
sued because their county clerks were allegedly enforcing
state laws that prevent non-Californians from circulating
initiatives and/or nomination papers.
In light of the court's ruling in Nader , this bill repeals a
requirement that a person must be qualified to register to
vote in the state in order to circulate an initiative or
referendum petition in the state. To help facilitate
enforcement of the law in the case of circulators that are not
AB 857
Page 15
residents of California, this bill requires non-residents to
sign a declaration consenting to the jurisdiction of the state
and to service of process for any legal action for the
purposes of an investigation or prosecution by any state or
local agency.
6)Arguments in Support : The sponsor of this bill, the
California Labor Federation, writes, in support:
Gone are the days when the initiative process was
driven by average Californians compelled to act when
legislators would not. Petition circulators were once
almost universally unpaid, and signature gathering
campaigns failed most often from a lack of volunteers.
An inability to qualify was simply a sign that
proponents needed more time to recruit an army of
volunteers with which to cultivate sufficient
grassroots support. Without both public support and
devoted volunteers, campaigns could not generate the
required number of petition signatures. The system,
on its own, eliminated proposals that were not ready
to become law.
That system is now a distant memory. The activists
who organized widespread support by devoting time,
energy, and passion towards a cause have been
replaced; now, wealthy individuals and corporations
hire signature gathering firms who run the show.
Petition circulators are paid up to $7 for every
signature, volunteers and/or grassroots support are
nowhere to be found, and many circulators openly
mislead potential signers?.
Taken together, [the] reforms [in AB 857] will
dramatically strengthen the integrity of the process
by which proposed ballot measures qualify for the
ballot. AB 857 will weaken existing incentives for
fraud and deceit while protecting the public interest,
promoting transparency, and improving the overall
quality of voter-approved public policy.
7)Concerns Expressed : While not taking an official position on
this bill, the California Association of Clerks and Election
Officials (CACEO) raises concerns about certain provisions of
this bill. In its letter, CACEO writes:
AB 857
Page 16
Election Management System Capacity . Discussions with
vendors have confirmed that existing election
management systems are not programmed to administer
this proposal. This will require numerous programming
changes to the current applications in order to comply
and to avoid unwanted or unexpected consequences.
Moreover, existing systems do not have separate
applications for state, county, city or district
petitions, or separate applications based on type of
petition (initiative, referendum or recall), requiring
the development of a completely separate application
for state initiatives.
Proposal Appears to Conflict with Existing Law or
Regulation . The requirement to ensure signatures are
collected and included in the verification may be in
direct conflict with subsection (d) of Section 9030 of
the California Elections Code. Meeting current rules
and applying analysis relating to duplicate signatures
across petition sections by circulator type would need
a solution.
Increased Workload, Time and Related Cost .
Implementation will require a higher level of manual
processing to determine raw counts and prior to data
entry or computer processing, increasing the time to
complete review and creating a need for additional
overtime in order to meet current petition deadlines.
8)State Mandates : The 2011-12 and 2012-13 state budgets
included the suspension of various state mandates as a
mechanism for cost savings. Included on the list of
suspensions were all six existing elections-related mandates.
All the existing elections-related mandates have been proposed
for suspension again by the Governor in his budget for the
2013-14 fiscal year. The Committee may wish to consider
whether it is desirable to establish new mandates when the
Legislature has voted to suspend the existing election
mandates.
9)Related Legislation : AB 400 (Fong), which is pending on the
Assembly Floor, requires an initiative, referendum, or recall
petition that is circulated by a paid circulator to include a
statement identifying the five largest contributors in support
AB 857
Page 17
of the measure. AB 400 was approved by this committee on a
5-2 vote.
SB 477 (Steinberg), which is pending in the Senate Rules
Committee, declares the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation to prohibit a political campaign committee from
accepting large contributions for supporting the qualification
of a statewide initiative ballot measure until the committee
has first received a significant number of small individual
contributions made for the same purpose, thereby demonstrating
a sufficient degree of public support for the proposed
initiative measure.
10)Previous Legislation : AB 651 (Hueso) of 2011, would have
required all professional petition firms, as defined, to
register with the SOS, and to review the law relating to
obtaining petition signatures with each paid petition
circulator before the circulator could obtain signatures for
the firm. AB 651 was vetoed by Governor Brown, who stated
that he was "not convinced that these new requirements are
needed or would improve the initiative process."
SB 334 (DeSaulnier) of 2011, would have required the state
ballot pamphlet for an election to include a list of the five
highest contributors of $50,000 or more to each primarily
formed committee supporting and opposing the ballot measures
that would appear on the ballot at that election. SB 334 was
vetoed by Governor Brown, who expressed concern that the
cutoff date for including contributors in the ballot pamphlet
in order to comply with printing deadlines could "mislead
voters about the true supporters and opponents of a ballot
measure."
AB 2946 (Leno) of 2006, would have provided that any signatures
collected in violation of any provision of state law relating
to the circulation of a statewide initiative, referendum, or
recall petition shall be invalid and shall not count towards
qualification of the initiative, referendum, or recall, among
other provisions. AB 2946 was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, who argued that it would "allow legal
technicalities to thwart the will of hundreds of thousands of
Californians who choose to sign initiative petitions."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 857
Page 18
Support
California Labor Federation (co-sponsor)
California Professional Firefighters (co-sponsor)
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Engineers and Scientists of California
International Longshore & Warehouse Union
Laborers' International Union of North America Local 777
Laborers' International Union of North America Local 792
Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21
San Mateo County Central Labor Council
UNITE HERE!
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council
Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094