BILL ANALYSIS
AB 6
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 6 (Saldana) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUBJECT : Initiatives: paid circulators.
SUMMARY : Requires professional petition firms to register with
the Secretary of State (SOS) and pay a registration fee
established by the SOS. Requires the SOS to use the fees
collected to maintain an online directory of professional firms.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines the term, "professional petition firm" as an entity
that pays individuals to circulate petitions and gather
signatures for the purpose of qualifying an initiative on a
state or local election ballot.
2)Requires a professional petition firm to register annually
with the SOS in order to pay individuals to circulate
petitions and collect signatures to qualify an initiative on a
state or local election ballot.
3)Requires the registration to include the full name, address,
and partners, owners, or officers of the firm and to be
accompanied by a registration fee established by the SOS.
4)Requires the SOS to use the fee revenues to maintain on its
Internet web site a directory of professional petition firms
and defray any other associated costs with the requirements of
this bill.
5)Requires a member of a professional petition firm to review
the law relating to obtaining petition signatures with each
paid petition circulator as a condition of the circulator's
hiring.
6)Requires a copy of the training materials provided to the
prospective petition firm employees to be submitted by the
firm to the SOS. Requires the firm to submit a statement to
the SOS for each circulator, signed by the circulator and the
individual conducting the review, that the circulator has
received the review.
AB 6
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes a process for proposing initiative measures
submitted to voters in California and sets forth
qualifications for persons who circulate initiative petitions.
Provides that a person who is a voter or who is qualified to
register to vote in this state may circulate an initiative or
referendum petition anywhere within the state.
2)Provides that only proponents of an initiative may file
petitions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Over the decades California has seen the initiative process
shift from what was originally envisioned to be a
volunteer-based effort to a system where increasingly large
sums of money are required in order to qualify a measure
for the ballot. Qualifying an initiative for the ballot
now necessitates the use of paid signature gathers (usually
employed by a professional petition firm, at a typical cost
of between $1 million and $3 million per petition), yet
unfortunately, the State lacks a mechanism to verify
whether or not these individuals are provided with
sufficient understanding of the laws that regulate this
activity, including what constitutes fraud. This bill
seeks to create a proactive requirement that better ensures
that proper training of these laws is provided.
2)Are Signature Verification Procedures Sufficient in Reducing
Fraudulent Signature Gathering Activities ? The extent of
fraudulent signature gathering in California is unknown.
According to a report issued by the Center for Governmental
Studies, there are no known cases in the state of volunteer
signature gatherers submitting fraudulent signatures.
However, since 2000, there have been 13 convictions on charges
of falsified petitions in California, with the most recent
occurring in August 2006 when a solicitor signed 14 fictitious
AB 6
Page 3
signatures for a measure that qualified for the November 2004
ballot. The current signature verification procedure
administered by a professional petition circulation firm and
elections officials may be sufficient to curtail improper
signature gathering.
3)National Efforts to Curb Signature Gathering Fraud : On March
31, 2009, the Denver House State, Veterans and Military
Affairs Committee unanimously passed House Bill 1326, which
would require signature-gathering firms to be licensed by the
state and would prohibit them from paying petition circulators
by the signature. The bill would also impose several new
accountability measures such as tougher rules for petition
notarization and would create a system by which a circulator's
signatures could be invalidated if certain requirements are
not met.
In Oregon, Secretary of State Kate Brown is proposing a bill
that will make substantial changes to the state's current
initiative process. House Bill 2005 among other things will
increase the time allowed for background checks of prospective
signature gatherers from three days to five, give the state
Elections Division access to state police databases, and
authorize the secretary of state to invalidate signatures
gathered by anyone convicted of fraud, forgery or identity
theft and signatures gathered by circulators who are not
properly registered with the state or who have been found
liable for certain civil or criminal election law offenses.
The bill will also make chief petitioners or petition
gathering firms liable in cases where they should have known
that a circulator broke the law and require those chief
petitioners to turn in signature sheets once a month and
authorize the secretary of state to begin verifying signatures
once a petition has reached 50 percent of the signatures
required to qualify for the ballot. The bill also prohibits
circulators from simultaneously gathering signatures as a
volunteer and as a paid circulator.
Arizona House Bill 2587, was approved unanimously by the House
Government Committee in March 2009. The bill will prohibit
paying petition circulators for each signature they submit.
The bill follows the November 2008 election cycle in which
three high-profile initiatives were deemed ineligible for the
state ballot because they hadn't submitted enough valid
signatures. For some initiatives, nearly one in every two
AB 6
Page 4
signatures submitted for review was found to be invalid.
4)Technical Amendment : On page 3, line 2 the word "that"
should be deleted.
5)Arguments in Support : According to the Planned Parenthood of
Affiliates of California:
California's initiative process was originally envisioned
as a volunteer-based effort to pass measures desired by a
majority of the people. The current process has shifted to
a system where increasingly large sums of money are
required in order to qualify a measure for the ballot.
These efforts now necessitate the use of paid signature
gatherers, usually employed by a professional petition
firm, at a typical cost of between $1 million and $3
million per initiative. This bill rightfully puts more
responsibility on signature gathering firms to ensure their
employees follow signature gathering laws.
6)Previous Legislation : SB 1686 (Denham) of 2008 would have
made it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding
$5,000, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by both the fine and imprisonment, for a person,
company, organization, company official, or other
organizational officer in charge of a person who circulates an
initiative, referendum, or recall petition to knowingly direct
or permit the person to make a false affidavit concerning the
initiative, referendum, or recall petition. SB 1686 was
vetoed by the Governor, though the Governor did not express
any policy objections to the bill. Instead the bill was one
of 136 bills that received the same veto message. That veto
message is as follows:
The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State
Budget has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to
my desk at the end of the year's legislative session.
Given the delay, I am only signing bills that are the
highest priority for California. This bill does not
meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 6
Page 5
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Secretary of State Debra Bowen
Opposition
California Family Council
Capitol Resource Family Impact
Analysis Prepared by : Qiana Charles / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094