BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1203
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1203 (DeSaulnier)
As Amended May 6, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :22-5
ELECTIONS 5-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Gatto, Mendoza, | | |
| |Saldana, Swanson | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Adams, Bill Berryhill | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires a person who is paid to gather signatures on
an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to wear a badge
that indicates that he or she is paid and disclosing whether he
or she is registered to vote and if so, the county in which he
or she is registered to vote. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires an individual who receives compensation to circulate
an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to identify
himself or herself as a paid signature gatherer by wearing a
badge stating "PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER." Requires the badge
to identify the county in which the circulator is registered
to vote, or if the circulator is not registered to vote,
requires the badge to state "NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE."
2)Requires the print on a badge worn pursuant to this bill to be
no smaller than 30-point type.
EXISTING LAW requires every state or local initiative petition
to contain a statement notifying voters of their right to
inquire whether the petition is being circulated by a paid
signature gatherer or a volunteer.
FISCAL EFFECT : Keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Voters should have the
right to know immediately whether a signature gatherer is paid
or not. Because of the way signature gatherers are paid (on a
SB 1203
Page 2
per-signature basis), there are more instances of fraud. SB
1203 will allow voters to know who is truly a volunteer and who
is not."
In 1988, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado
prohibition against the use of paid circulators for initiative
petitions violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free
speech. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Stevens noted
that "[t]he State's interest in protecting the integrity of the
initiative process does not justify the prohibition because the
State has failed to demonstrate that it is necessary to burden
appellees' ability to communicate their message in order to meet
its concerns." Meyer v. Grant (1988), 486 U.S. 414.
In 1999, the United States Supreme Court examined a Colorado law
that provided a number of other restrictions on the signature
collection process for ballot initiatives. In that case the
court ruled that there must be a compelling state interest to
justify any restrictions on initiative petition circulation.
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), 525
U.S. 182.
In Buckley, the court invalidated Colorado's requirement that
paid petition circulators wear a badge identifying themselves
and identifying that they are paid circulators. The court
stated that the requirement to wear badges inhibits
participation in the petitioning process. "Because the badge
requirement compels personal name identification at the precise
moment when the circulator's interest in anonymity is greatest,
it does not qualify for inclusion among 'the more limited
[election process] identification requirement[s]." The Buckley
court did not rule on the validity of the requirement that a
circulator wear a badge stating whether a petition circulator
was paid or a volunteer.
In an April 17, 2001, opinion, Legislative Counsel opined that a
statute to require an individual circulating a petition to
disclose (verbally or by a sign, pin, badge, hat, or other
indication) whether the individual is paid to circulate the
petition is valid under the California and United States
Constitutions. In its analysis, Legislative Counsel wrote "in
our view the disclosure of the paid or unpaid status of the
petition circulator at the time of circulation properly may be
characterized as the least drastic means to accomplish the
SB 1203
Page 3
substantial state interest of enabling potential petition
signers to assess the sincerity of circulators."
AB 738 (Nation) of 2005 was similar to this bill, except that it
did not require a circulator's badge to indicate whether the
circulator was registered to vote and, if so, the county in
which the circulator was registered to vote. AB 738 was vetoed
by Governor Schwarzenegger, 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.
AB 738 was similar to SB 725 (Scott) of 2001 and SB 1219
(Schiff) of 1999, both of which were vetoed by Governor Davis,
and to SB 1979 (Schiff) of 1998, which was vetoed by Governor
Wilson.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0004997