BILL ANALYSIS
AB 6
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 6 (Saldana)
As Amended April 28, 2009
Majority vote
ELECTIONS 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 11-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Coto, Mendoza, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Saldana, Swanson | |Calderon, Davis, |
| | | |Krekorian, Hall, John A. |
| | | |Perez, Price Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakson |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Adams, Bill Berryhill |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Audra Strickland |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
AB 6
Page 2
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there would be minor costs to the SOS to establish
and maintain the registration system, at least partially offset
by fees paid by registrants. The SOS indicated that there are
currently less than 20 petition firms operating in the state.
COMMENTS : 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."
In the past, there have been a number of bills that have
addressed the need to reform California's signature gathering
process. For example, 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
AB 6
Page 3
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."
Analysis Prepared by : Qiana Charles / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094
FN: 0000695