BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 857
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 857 (Fong)
As Amended September 6, 2013
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |53-24|(May 29, 2013) |SENATE: |23-11|(September 10, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |51-25|(September 11, | | | |
| | |2013) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
SUMMARY : Makes numerous significant changes to provisions of state
law governing state initiatives. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires at least 10% of the signatures collected to qualify a
state initiative for the ballot to be collected by individuals who
did not receive money or valuable consideration exclusively or
primarily for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of
electors on the petition, as specified ("10% requirement").
a) Provides that signatures qualify toward the 10% requirement
if they are collected by an employee or member of a non-profit
organization (except a political party), as specified, who
receives money or valuable consideration from the organization
and as part of that employment or membership solicits
signatures, as specified.
b) Provides that signatures solicited through direct mail do
not count towards the 10% requirement unless i) every person
who organizes, pays, or arranges for the direct mail, is
eligible to solicit signatures that qualify toward meeting the
10% requirement, or ii) an organization that has a primary
purpose other than soliciting signatures on initiative
petitions is soliciting signatures from its members through
AB 857
Page 2
direct mail.
2)Requires a petition section that qualifies toward the 10%
requirement to be printed on white paper. Requires a petition
section that does not qualify toward the 10% requirement to be
printed on paper of a color other than white, and to include the
following notice printed 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."
3)Requires a person who solicits signatures that qualify toward the
10% requirement to sign an affidavit declaring that to the best of
his or her knowledge, the signatures on the sections that he or
she circulated should count towards the requirement.
4)Makes corresponding changes to the process for elections officials
to verify signatures submitted on a state initiative petition.
5)Provides that the signatures on a state initiative petition
section are invalid if they are solicited and submitted by a
person who engages in intentional fraud, misrepresentation, or
other illegal conduct concerning the circulation of the petition,
as specified. Provides that the Secretary of State (SOS), the
Attorney General (AG), any district attorney, any city attorney of
a city having a population in excess of 750,000, 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. Prohibits a petition section from being
invalidated after the SOS has certified that the measure has
qualified for the ballot.
The Senate amendments :
1)Reduce the percentage of signatures on a state initiative petition
that must be collected by individuals who did not receive money or
valuable consideration exclusively or primarily for the specific
purpose of soliciting signatures of electors on the petition, as
specified, from 20% to 10%.
AB 857
Page 3
2)Delete provisions of the bill that would have required state
initiative petitions to include a listing of the three top donors
of $50,000 or more to the committee paying for the petition to be
circulated.
3)Delete provisions of the bill that would have required
professional petition firms (PPFs) to register with the SOS, and
that would have required PPFs to train the circulators that they
employ and to provide specified information to the SOS about the
paid circulators they employ. Delete related provisions that
would have required PPFs to maintain records that would have been
subject to inspection by the SOS, and that would have required
county elections officials to verify that the individuals who
circulated certain initiative petitions were on a list of trained
circulators maintained by the SOS.
4)Specify that if a person signs a petition for an initiative both
on a petition section that qualifies for meeting the 10%
requirement and on a petition section that does not qualify for
meeting the 10% requirement, the signature on the petition that
meets the 10% requirement shall count, and the other signature
shall not.
5)Exclude referendum measures from any of the provisions of the
bill.
6)Provide that a person who is paid to collect signatures on an
initiative petition is not eligible to collect signatures that
qualify toward the 10% requirement for that same initiative.
7)Permit the SOS to adopt emergency regulations for the purposes of
this bill.
8)Provide that the provisions of this bill do not apply to any
initiative measure for which the AG issues a circulating title and
summary before January 1, 2014.
9)Revise the findings and declarations.
10)Make other minor, corresponding, clarifying, and technical
changes.
AB 857
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
1)Approximately $50,000 to SOS for revising regulations (General
Fund).
2)Unknown, probably not substantial, costs to local county election
officials (General Fund).
COMMENTS : According to the author, "AB 857 preserves the original
intent of the initiative process by ensuring that initiative
measures have broad-based community support in order to qualify to
appear on the ballot. To achieve that goal, AB 857 requires at
least 10% 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 prohibiting fraudulently
collected signatures from being used to qualify a measure for the
ballot."
Under the provisions of this bill, in order for a state initiative
measure to qualify for the ballot, at least 10% 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 purpose of soliciting signatures of electors on
the petition, as specified. This "10% requirement" does not apply
to state referendum or recall petitions, nor does it apply to local
initiatives, referenda, or recalls.
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
10% requirement imposed by this bill could be susceptible to a court
challenge in light of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in
AB 857
Page 5
Meyer. However, the 10% 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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
The initiative process is far from perfect and monied
interests have historically manipulated it at will.
Nevertheless, fixing the system is not easy.
Requiring a specific threshold of signatures to be gathered
by volunteers will not stop abuses by narrow special
interests - particularly if "volunteer" is defined with the
broad exemptions as in this bill.
Efforts to make the system fairer and more reflective of
sound government should be considered. But this measure falls
short of returning to the citizen-driven system originally
envisioned in 1911.
Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0002907