BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
3
4
SB 34 (Corbett)
As Amended April 14, 2009
Hearing date: April 21, 2009
Elections Code
MK:br
PETITIONS: COMPENSATION FOR SIGNATURES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 1686 (Denham) - vetoed 2008
SB 1047 (Bowen) - held in Assembly Elections &
Reapportionment 2006
AB 2946 (Leno) - vetoed 2006
Support: City of Murrieta; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of
California; Secretary of State
Opposition:Capitol Resource Family Impact
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD IT BE A MISDEMEANOR TO PAY OR RECEIVE MONEY OR ANY OTHER
THING OF VALUE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES OBTAINED ON A STATE
OR LOCAL INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, OR RECALL PETITION?
(More)
SB 34 (Corbett)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to make it make it a misdemeanor to
pay or receive money or any other thing of value based on the
number of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative,
referendum, or recall petition.
Existing law provides that notwithstanding any other provision
of law, any state or local initiative petition required to be
signed by voters shall contain in 12-point type, prior to that
portion of the petition for voters' signatures, printed names,
and residence addresses, the following language:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE
GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK."
(Elections Code 101.)
Existing law 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 in accordance with this
code. A person who is a voter may circulate a recall
petition in accordance with this code. (Elections Code
102.)
Existing law provides that any person who makes any false
affidavit concerning any initiative, referendum, or recall
petition or the signatures appended thereto is punishable by
a fine not exceeding $5000, or by imprisonment in the state
prison for 16 months or 2 or 3 years or in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.
(Elections Code 18660.)
This bill provides that it is a misdemeanor for a person to
pay or receive money or any other thing of value based on the
number of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative,
referendum or recall petition.
This bill provides that the penalty for the person who
(More)
SB 34 (Corbett)
PageC
received money to collect the signatures is a fine not to
exceed $1000 or up to six months in county jail or both.
This bill provides that the penalty for the person who paid
another to collect the signatures is a fine not to exceed
$25,000 or up to one year in county jail or both.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
SB 34 (Corbett)
PageD
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
(More)
SB 34 (Corbett)
PageE
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
In California and throughout the country, there are
increasing reports of ballot initiative fraud in the
signature gathering process. Quite often, signature
gathering firms compensate circulators based on the
number of signatures they gather which may encourage
some circulators to collect signatures by any means
necessary.
This bill intends to address this issue by banning
the possibility of paying per signature.
2. Unlawful to Pay or be Paid Per Signature
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures:
It is common for initiative sponsors to pay
circulators on a per-signature basis to gather
petition signatures. Payments typically range from
$1 to $3 per signature, and occasionally are as high
----------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
SB 34 (Corbett)
PageF
as $10 per signature. Critics argue that this
encourages fraud - since a circulator who collects
more signatures will earn more money, circulators who
are paid per signature are more likely to commit acts
of fraud such as forging signatures or
misrepresenting the content of the petition in order
to encourage people to sign.
In three states (North Dakota, Oregon and Wyoming),
initiative sponsors are banned from paying petition
circulators per signature. Instead, they may pay a
flat fee or an hourly salary. These laws have been
challenged in the courts with mixed results. North
Dakota and Oregon's provisions have been upheld by
the U.S. 9th and 8th Circuit Courts, respectively.
However, similar provisions in Idaho, Maine,
Mississippi and Washington were held unconstitutional
by federal district courts.
( http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/laws_petit
_circulators.htm#banning )
(More)
This bill would make it unlawful for a person to pay or receive
money or any other thing of value based on the number of
signatures obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum
or recall petition. The person who pays another on a
per-signature basis to collect signatures would be subject to up
to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $25,000 ($95,000
with penalty assessments<3>) or both the fine and jail. The
collector of the signatures would be subject to a fine of up to
$1000 ($3800 with penalty assessments) or up to six months in
jail or both the fine and jail. This bill does not make it
unlawful to pay the same gatherer an hourly or daily wage.
SHOULD IT BE A MISDEMEANOR TO PAY OR RECEIVE MONEY OR ANY OTHER
THING OF VALUE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES OBTAINED ON A
STATE OR LOCAL INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, OR RECALL PETITION?
3. Support
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California supports this bill
stating:
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
gathers, usually employed by a professional petition
firm, at a typical cost of between $1 million and $3
million per initiative.
Twenty-four states exercise an initiative process and
----------------------
<3> Until the Budget Year 2002-2003, there was 170% in penalty
assessments applied to every fine, the current penalty
assessments are approximately 280%. (See Penal Code 1464;
Penal Code 1465.7; Penal Code 1465.8; Government Code
70372; Government Code 7600.5; Government Code 76000 et
seq.; Government Code 76104.6)
(More)
SB 34 (Corbett)
PageH
each state prohibits unethical behavior of initiative
industries. In California and throughout the
country, there are increasing reports of ballot
initiative fraud in the signature gathering process.
Quite often in this state, signature gathering firms
compensate circulators based on the number of
signatures they gather. As deadlines to file
initiatives approach, signature gathering firms raise
the price per signature for qualifying measures.
This practice may provide incentive for circulators
to gather signatures by unethical means.
Specific cases of fraud have occurred in Montana, Nevada
and Oklahoma, and similar accusations of corruption are
common in California. Moreover, three states have
banned initiative sponsors from paying petition
circulators on a per signature basis (North Dakota,
Oregon and Wyoming).
4. Opposition
The Capitol Resource Family Impact opposes this bill stating:
This bill would make average citizens criminals by
making it a misdemeanor for anyone to pay or receive
anything of value, based on the number of signatures
obtained on an initiative, referendum, or recall
petition. This applies to state and local issues.
CRFI opposes this bill because it seeks to restrict
the people's ability to place measures on the ballot.
Every initiative, referendum, and recall petition in
California has a notice printed on the top, telling
signers that they have the right to ask whether the
signature gatherer is paid or a volunteer. Also,
qualifying a measure for the California ballot
requires hundreds of thousands of signatures. Almost
every measure that qualifies with signatures needs
SB 34 (Corbett)
PageI
paid signature gatherers.
Campaign workers, who want to make their voices heard
in the California Legislature, can be paid. CRFI
maintains that voters should be free to receive
compensation of the hours they contribute toward
participating in the initiative process.
5. Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments
Committee Vote
This bill was heard on March 31 in the Committee on Elections,
Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments. The bill passed
with a vote of 3 Ayes and 2 Noes.
***************