BILL ANALYSIS
SB 34
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 34 (Corbett)
As Amended April 14, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :22-14
ELECTIONS 4-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Coto, Mendoza, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Swanson | |Calderon, Coto, Davis, |
| | | |Fuentes, Hall, Hill, |
| | | |John A. Perez, Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakson |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
|Nays:|Adams, Bill Berryhill |Nays:|Conway, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Audra Strickland |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes it a misdemeanor for a person to pay or to
receive money or any other thing of value based on the number of
signatures collected on a state or local initiative, referendum,
or recall petition. Specifically, this bill provides that:
1)A person or organization that pays a person based on the
number of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative,
referendum, or recall petition shall be punished by a fine of
an amount not to exceed $25,000, or by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, or by both the fine and
imprisonment.
2)A person who is paid based on the number of signatures
obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall
petition shall be punished by a fine of an amount not to
exceed $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to
exceed six months, or by both a fine and imprisonment.
3)Its provisions do not prohibit paid signature gatherers from
SB 34
Page 2
collecting signatures on an hourly or daily rate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, unknown non-reimbursable costs to cities and counties
for prosecution and incarceration, offset to some extent by fine
revenues.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "It is important that the
initiative process produces initiatives that voters truly desire
and not initiatives that qualify because circulators gather
signatures unlawfully to inflate their compensation. According
to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center in Washington, DC, the
number of petition fraud cases has been increasing in the 24
states that practice an initiative process. Specific cases of
fraud in Montana, Nevada, and Oklahoma included circulators who
forged signatures onto their petitions of names they chose from
a phonebook. Others have inserted carbon paper and a second
petition beneath the original one, without the persons'
knowledge, to get their signature on another petition. Similar
accusations of corruption are also common in California. In
2006, local election officials discovered that nearly
thirty-three percent of signatures in a petition filed to call a
June election among SMUD [Sacramento Municipal Utilities
District] customers on whether the public-power should expand
into Yolo County were fraudulent."
Analysis Prepared by : Qiana Charles / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094
FN:
0002309