BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2946
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 24, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 2946 (Leno) - As Amended: April 26, 2006
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill places several new requirements on the
signature-gathering process for initiatives, referenda, and
recalls. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires a petition for a state or local initiative to
identify whether the petition is being circulated by a paid
signature gatherer or a volunteer.
2)Makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to pay or be paid based on
the number of signatures obtained on a state or local
initiative, referendum, or recall petition or the number of
affidavits or applications obtained when assisting in a voter
registration or absentee voter ballot applications,
respectively.
3)Makes any signature obtained in violation of the Elections
Code invalid.
4)Permits any state initiative or referendum proponent to submit
a petition to the Attorney General (AG) for approval prior to
circulation of the petition, and requires the AG to notify the
proponent within 10 days as to whether the petition complies
with the requirements of the Elections Code, and, if not, to
notify the proponents why it does not and to allow a corrected
petition to be submitted for approval.
5)Requires a petition circulated by a circulator paid by a
campaign committee to include:
a) A statement identifying the committee's three largest
cumulative contributions, to be updated within 14 days of
AB 2946
Page 2
any changes in the three largest contributors. The
committee must also submit this statement, and any updates,
to the Secretary of State (SOS), who must post the
disclosure statements on their website.
b) The committee's name, using a phrase that clearly
identifies the economic or other special interest of its
donors of $50,000 or more.
6)Requires the ballot title and summary and the ballot label
prepared by the AG to be stated in complete sentences and be
understandable to the average voter.
7)Establishes that, if the proponent of a statewide initiative
or recall petition has knowledge of a violation by a
circulator of any state law regarding circulation of the
proponent's petition, it shall be considered a violation by
the proponent unless the proponent notifies the SOS within one
business day of obtaining knowledge of the violation.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor to moderate costs for the SOS to post petition statements
on its website and for the AG to review petitions prior to
circulation.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . In support of this bill, sponsored by the California
Labor Federation, the author states, "The initiative process
is in desperate need of reform. Recent times have seen an
increase in the amount and complexity of petitions being
circulated throughout the state. The public is oftentimes
asked to sign petitions to qualify initiatives they know
nothing about. Frequently, signature gatherers are paid per
signature. This creates an incentive to lie or mislead the
public as to what they are really signing. Furthermore, when
signature gatherers are prosecuted for violations of the law,
those who paid them, trained them, and encouraged them to use
deception and fraud are not held responsible.
Many signature gatherers are paid; some are volunteers.
However, nothing in current law requires a signature gatherer
to disclose which category he or she falls into. This
information proves useful when trying to determine the
AB 2946
Page 3
signature gatherer's motivation and understanding of an
initiative. Additionally, when a voter is asked to sign a
petition, he or she cannot see which individuals or
organizations are funding the initiative. This leaves the
voter vulnerable to a situation in which they have signed a
petition funded by entities they may not agree with."
2)Related Legislation . SB 1047 (Bowen) prohibits payment on a
per-piece or per-signature basis for individuals gathering
signatures on petitions or registering voters. SB 1047 is
awaiting referral by the Assembly Rules Committee.
SB 1598 (Bowen) requires an initiative, referendum, or recall
petition to indicate whether it is being circulated by a paid
circulator or volunteer and to include a statement identifying
the five largest contributors in support of the measure. SB
1598 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 2460 (Evans), also on today's committee agenda, requires
the SOS to approve an initiative petition before that petition
can be circulated, and provides that no signatures on an
initiative petition section shall be counted unless the
section is identical to the petition approved by the SOS.
3)Prior Legislation . SB 469 (Bowen) of 2005, which was vetoed by
the Governor, would have required an initiative, referendum,
or recall petition to indicate whether it is being circulated
by a paid circulator or volunteer and to include a statement
identifying the five largest contributors in support of the
measure. In his veto message to SB 469, Governor
Schwarzenegger indicated that he believed the bill "attacks
the initiative process and makes it more difficult for the
people of California to gather signatures and qualify measures
for the ballot."
AB 738 (Nation) of 2005, which was vetoed by the Governor,
would have required an individual who receives compensation to
circulate an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to
wear a badge identifying himself or herself as a paid
signature gatherer. In his veto message to AB 738, Governor
Schwarzenegger noted that existing law requires petitions to
contain a notice that the petition may be circulated by a paid
signature gatherer or a volunteer, and so he saw no compelling
reason to sign the bill.
AB 2946
Page 4
SB 725 (Scott) of 2001 would have required an initiative,
referendum, or recall petition to reflect whether it is being
circulated by a person paid to collect signatures or by a
volunteer. SB 725 was vetoed by Governor Davis, 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.
SB 725 was similar to SB 1219 (Schiff) of 1999 and SB 1979
(Schiff) of 1998, which were vetoed by Governor Davis and
Governor Wilson, respectively.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081