BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 481
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 481 (Gordon) - As Amended: April 5, 2011
SUBJECT : Petitions: signature gatherers.
SUMMARY : Requires a person who is collecting petition
signatures to wear a badge indicating whether he or she is a
paid signature gatherer or a volunteer signature gatherer, and
requires similar information be disclosed on any state or local
initiative, referendum, or recall petition. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Defines "paid circulator," for the purposes of this bill, as a
person who is compensated in any manner for collecting
petition signatures to qualify a state or local initiative,
referendum, or recall measure.
2)Defines "volunteer," for purposes of this bill, as a person
who is not a paid circulator.
3)Requires that a state or local initiative, referendum, or
recall petition circulated by a paid circulator contain the
phrase "PAID CIRCULATOR," in 24-point type above the following
language in 12-point type:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
THIS PETITION IS BEING CIRCULATED BY A PERSON WHO IS BEING PAID
TO COLLECT SIGNATURES
4)Requires that a state or local initiative, referendum, or
recall petition circulated by a volunteer contain the phrase
"VOLUNTEER CIRCULATOR," in 24-point type above the following
language in 12-point type:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
THIS PETITION IS BEING CIRCULATED BY A VOLUNTEER
5)Requires an individual who receives compensation to circulate
an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to identify him
or herself as a paid signature gatherer by wearing a badge
stating "PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER." Requires a volunteer to
AB 481
Page 2
identify him or herself by wearing a badge stating "VOLUNTEER
SIGNATURE GATHERER."
6)Requires the badge to be worn on the chest of the signature
gatherer in clear view of all individuals signing or asked to
sign the petition. Requires the print on the badge 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 :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
AB 481 would provide greater disclosure whether a petition
for any state or local initiative, referendum, or recall
petition is being circulated by a volunteer or a paid
signature gatherer. The bill will allow a person
approached outside a grocery store to know whether the
person is a volunteer who really believes in the issue or
someone who is compensated to advocate.
Although the initiative has roots in the populist movement
of the early twentieth century, it has since launched a
multi-million dollar cottage industry. Qualifying an
initiative can cost well over $1 million and most campaigns
employ paid signature gatherers in order to ensure that a
sufficient number of signatures are obtained. According to
a recent overview by the National Conference of State
Legislatures, "�a] campaign that has adequate funds to pay
circulators has a nearly 100 percent chance of qualifying
for the ballot in many states." With signature gatherers
often paid a dollar or more for a signature, there is an
incentive to seek a quick signature and move on rather than
fully engaging the public on the measure's substance.
This bill would, in two ways, provide the public with
greater transparency whether a petition for any state or
local initiative, referendum, or recall petition is being
circulated by a volunteer or a paid signature gatherer.
AB 481
Page 3
First, the bill would require an individual compensated for
gathering signatures to wear a badge stating that he or she
is a paid signature gatherer. The bill would specify that
the badge would need to be worn on the person's chest in
clear view and the print on the badge shall be no smaller
than 30 point font. Second, the bill would replace the
existing requirement that a petition include a statement
that the person may be paid or a volunteer with greater
disclosure. Specifically, the petition would have to
include, in 24 point type at the top, "PAID CIRCULATOR" if
the person is being compensated or "VOLUNTEER CIRCULATOR"
if the person is uncompensated. Below each would be a
sentence that that the petition is being circulated by
either a person being paid or a volunteer respectively. The
bill would also extend this requirement to referendum and
recall petitions.
The bill would not prevent an individual from being
compensated for signature gathering, nor would it pose a
significant burden on signature gatherers. Instead, the
bill would simply provide more sunshine on the initiative
process and allow the public to make a more informed
decision whether or not to sign a petition.
2)United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence : 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
AB 481
Page 4
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.
3)Legislative Counsel Opinion : 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
substantial state interest of enabling potential petition
signers to assess the sincerity of circulators."
4)Arguments in Support : The Secretary of State (SOS), in
support of this bill, notes that while there is plenty of
information on what an initiative does and who is financing it
after the initiative has qualified for the ballot, there is
almost nothing available to help people decide whether they
want to support putting a measure on the ballot in the first
place. The SOS also argues that although current law gives a
person the right to inquire as to whether the person
circulating the petition is being paid or is a volunteer, not
all people are aware of this right, let alone exercise it.
5)Arguments in Opposition : The Capitol Resource Family Impact,
in opposition to this bill, argues that it is an attempt to
discredit paid referendum, initiative, or recall signature
gatherers, and that the fact that a person is paid for
collecting signatures should not in any way, shape, or form
diminish the credibility of the effort for which the
signatures are being collected, yet forcing a paid individual
to wear a badge stating their status can adversely affect
their efforts. They also argue that current law, which allows
AB 481
Page 5
an individual approached by a signature gatherer to ask
whether they are paid to collect signatures or not, is
sufficient.
6)Related Legislation : AB 651 (Hueso), pending in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee,
requires firms that pay individuals to circulate petitions and
gather signatures to register with the SOS.
SB 168 (Corbett), pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee, 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.
SB 448 (DeSaulnier), pending in the Senate Elections and
Constitutional Amendments Committee, requires every paid
signature gatherer to wear a badge that indicates that he or
she is paid and discloses whether he or she is registered to
vote and if so, the county in which he or she is registered to
vote.
7)Previous Legislation : SB 1203 (DeSaulnier) of 2010, would
have required a person who was paid to gather signatures on an
initiative, referendum, or recall petition to wear a badge
that indicated that he or she is paid and disclosed whether he
or she was registered to vote and if so, the county in which
he or she was registered to vote. SB 1203 was approved by
this committee, but subsequently was gutted and amended for an
unrelated purpose.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center
California Police Chiefs Association
Secretary of State Debra Bowen
Opposition
Capitol Resource Family Impact
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Maria Garcia / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
AB 481
Page 6