BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 857|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 857
Author: Fong (D)
Amended: 9/6/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONSTIT. AMEND. CMTE. : 4-1, 7/2/13
AYES: Torres, Hancock, Padilla, Yee
NOES: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 8/30/13
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-24, 5/29/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Initiatives: petition circulators
SOURCE : California Labor Federation
California Professional Firefighters
DIGEST : This bill makes several changes to initiative
signature gathering procedures relating to qualification
requirements for the state ballot.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/6/13 (1) reduce the percentage of
signatures that need to come from grassroots signature gatherers
on proposed state initiative measures from 20% to 10%; (2)
delete the requirement for state initiative petitions to include
a list of the largest donors, (3) amend provision so that the
current "Notice to Voters" remains in place for local initiative
CONTINUED
AB 857
Page
2
petitions, while the new "Notice to Voters" would apply to state
initiative petitions, and reduce the size of the new "Notice to
Voters" so that it is the same font size (12-point) as the
existing "Notice to Voters," (4) delete provisions to resolve a
conflict with SB 213, (5) give the Secretary of State (SOS)
explicit permission to adopt emergency regulations, so that
those regulations can be in effect by the time counties need to
start verifying signatures on petitions; (6) prohibit a person
who is being paid to circulate a petition, from also circulating
a petition for the same measure that qualifies for the 10%
requirement, and (7) delete some of the findings and
declarations and also makes clarifying and technical changes.
ANALYSIS :
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.
This bill:
1. Requires at least 10% of the signatures that are required to
qualify an initiative measure to be solicited by a person who
does not receive money for signature gathering; and requires
the county elections official to determine the number of
signatures that were submitted by unpaid circulators.
2. Requires initiatives circulated by volunteers to be printed
on white paper with a contrasting ink color, and requires
those circulated by paid individuals to be printed on paper
that is a color other than white with a contrasting ink
color.
CONTINUED
AB 857
Page
3
3. Provides local election officials with two additional days
(10 up from the current eight day requirement) to determine
the total number of signatures affixed to a petition; and an
additional five days (35 days up from the current 30 day
requirement) to determine that a petition has received a
sufficient number of signatures.
4. Contains Legislative Intent to do the following: 1)
preserve and protect the integrity of California's initiative
process, 2) ensure that initiative petitions have sufficient
public support from informed voters, and 3) protect access to
the initiative process and preserve the constitutional right
of voters to engage in direct democracy.
5. Requires initiatives circulated by paid signature gatherers
to include the following statement in 12-point boldface type:
"NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION IS BEING CIRCULATED BY
A PERSON PAID TO OBTAIN YOUR SIGNATURE. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED
TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THIS PETITION BEFORE SIGNING."
6. Gives the SOS explicit permission to adopt emergency
regulations, so that those regulations can be in effect by
the time counties need to start verifying signatures on
petitions
7. Requires a person who solicits signatures for a proposed
initiative measure and does not receive money or other
valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting
signatures of electors or make additional declarations, as
specified.
8. Requires the SOS to enact regulations pursuant to the
provisions in this measure.
9. Excludes individuals who are an employee or a member of a
nonprofit organization and who are paid by the nonprofit
organization as part of their employment from the "paid
signature gatherer" provisions - unless the primary purpose
of that employment is to gather signatures on an initiative
petition.
10.Provides that signatures solicited by registered voters or
employees of a political party who receive money or other
CONTINUED
AB 857
Page
4
valuable consideration from the political party for
soliciting signatures on an initiative petition do not
qualify toward meeting the 10% requirement.
11.Provides that signatures solicited through direct mail do
not count toward the 10% requirement, unless as specified.
12.Provides that nominal benefits other than money, such as
food, transportation or lodging, do not preclude that
individual from soliciting signatures as a volunteer.
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 petition.
Background
The initiative process is used by the voters to propose new
statutes, changes to existing law, and to propose amendments to
the California Constitution. Generally, any matter that is a
proper subject of legislation can become an initiative measure;
however, no initiative measure addressing more than one subject
area may be submitted to the voters or have any effect. An
initiative measure is placed on the ballot after its proponents
successfully satisfy the requirements prescribed by law.
Existing law 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 by a volunteer, and
that voters have the right to ask if a petition circulator is a
paid gatherer or volunteer.
Related Legislation
SB 477 (Steinberg) 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.
CONTINUED
AB 857
Page
5
AB 400 (Fong) 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
of the measure.
Prior Legislation
SB 334 (DeSaulnier, 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, 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."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Approximately $50,000 to Secretary of State for revising
regulations (General Fund)
Unknown, probably not substantial, costs to local county
election officials (General Fund)
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/9/13)
California Labor Federation (co-source)
California Professional Firefighters (co-source)
Alameda Labor Council, AFL-CIO
CONTINUED
AB 857
Page
6
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Public Interest Research Group
California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Communications Workers of America District 9
Engineers and Scientists of California
Equality California
International Longshore & Warehouse Union
Laborers' International Union of North America Locals 777 and
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 : (Verified 9/9/13)
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, 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 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 necessarily a function
of whether there is broad-based community support for a proposed
measure, as originally intended, but rather can depend 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
CONTINUED
AB 857
Page
7
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.
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.
This bill 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, this bill 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, this bill 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, this bill helps protect the integrity of
the initiative process by requiring professional petition firms
to train their employees 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 ten years.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association (HJTA) states in opposition, "HJTA has a long
history of opposing any legislation that makes it more difficult
for voters to engage in the initiative process. This extends to
the signature gathering necessary to qualify a measure for the
ballot. AB 857 makes this process immeasurably more difficult.
It forces paid petition circulators to register with the
Secretary of State, complete a mandated training program and
wear a badge with their registration number. If circulators
fail to register, the signatures they gather will not count.
The bill also requires that ballot measure proponents keep all
records pertaining to an initiative for two years. This
includes: payroll, copies of all petition sections that were
filled out for compensation, contracts, and training materials.
Failure to provide them, upon demand, to the Secretary of State
will result in invalidation of signatures. Signatures gathered
by persons who engage in fraud, as presumably determined by a
CONTINUED
AB 857
Page
8
civil action, would also be invalidated.
"AB 857 would place an unwarranted hindrance on the initiative
process that would hurt policy agenda's on both sides of the
political aisle. Perhaps the best recent example is Proposition
30, which had to qualify for the ballot in an extremely short
and costly timeframe. Would petition gatherers have time to
register and take a class before collecting signatures? If
signatures are gathered and proponents have not kept track of
payroll records, do the signatures count?
"The intent of the bill is not to provide safeguards for the
initiative process, but rather to invent ways to ensure that
measures the Secretary of State doesn't agree with are removed
from the ballot. This runs directly contrary to the 64% of
Californians in a recent PPIC poll that said they want to vote
on measures that come before them. Just because some believe
that the initiative process itself impedes the power of the
Legislature doesn't mean we should limit participation in one of
the most fundamental tenants of our democracy."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-24, 05/29/13
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bocanegra,
Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Cooley, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong,
Fox, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
Hall, Roger Hernández, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal,
Medina, Mitchell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, V.
Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner,
Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A.
Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones,
Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Morrell, Nestande,
Olsen, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Holden, Linder, Vacancy
RM:nl 9/9/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 857
Page
9
CONTINUED