BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Lou Correa, Chair
BILL NO: AB 481
HEARING DATE: 6/7/11
AUTHOR: GORDON
ANALYSIS BY: Darren Chesin
AMENDED: 4/5/11
FISCAL: NO
SUBJECT
Petitions: signature gatherers
DESCRIPTION
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.
This bill 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:
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.
Defines "volunteer," for purposes of this bill, as a
person who is not a paid circulator.
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
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
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 identify him or herself by
wearing a badge stating "VOLUNTEER SIGNATURE GATHERER."
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.
BACKGROUND
Until the 1980s, courts upheld bans on paid signature
gatherers. That changed in 1988, when the U.S. Supreme
Court invalidated Colorado's ban in the Meyer v. Grant
decision as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee
of free speech.
In Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation
(1999), the U.S. Supreme Court examined a Colorado law that
provided a number of other restrictions on the signature
collection process for ballot initiatives. 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 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
AB 481 (GORDON) Page
2
anonymity is greatest, it does not qualify for inclusion
among 'the more limited election process identification
requirements.'" However, the Buckley decision 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.
COMMENTS
1.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 taking
his or her personal time for the issue or someone who is
compensated to collect signatures.
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.
Under existing law, an initiative petition must include a
statement notifying the public that the petition may be
circulated by either a paid or volunteer signature
gatherer. The public may ask the signature gatherer
whether he or she is paid or a volunteer. Moreover,
there is a body of decisional law regarding the ability
of states to enact appropriate requirements for petition
signature gatherers. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court, in
Meyer v. Grant , ruled that a state may not ban paid
signature gatherers. However, in a 1999 case, Buckley v.
ACLF, Inc. , the Court struck down a requirement that
AB 481 (GORDON) Page
3
circulators wear a badge with their name, but explicitly
expressed no opinion on the constitutionality of badges
disclosing paid or volunteer status.
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.
First, the bill would require a signature gatherer to wear
a badge stating whether he or she is a volunteer or paid
signature gatherer. The bill would specify that the
badge would need to be worn or 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.Previous and Related Legislation . SB 448 (DeSaulnier),
which is pending in the Assembly Elections and
Redistricting Committee, would require paid signature
gatherers to wear a badge stating that they are a paid or
volunteer signature gatherer and if and where they are
registered to vote. If the person is not registered, the
badge would need to state that the person is not
registered to vote. SB 168 (Corbett), which is also
pending in the Assembly Elections and Redistricting
AB 481 (GORDON) Page
4
Committee, specifies that a petition signature gatherer
may not be paid by the signature.
AB 651 (Hueso), which is also before this committee today,
would require professional petition firms to register
with the Secretary of State and pay a registration fee.
SB 1203 (DeSaulnier) of 2010 would have required paid
signature gatherers to wear a badge stating that they are
a paid signature gatherer and if and where they are
registered to vote. If the person was not registered,
the badge would have stated that the person was not
registered to vote. That bill proceeded to the Assembly
Floor, where it was gutted and amended.
SB 34 (Corbett) of 2009, which was vetoed, would have
specified that a petition signature gatherer could not be
paid by the signature.
SB 1598 (Bowen) of 2006, which was vetoed, would have
required a petition in circulation to specify on the
petition whether the person gathering signatures is paid
or a volunteer and would also have provided for
disclosure on the petition of the largest financial
donors. SB 469 (Bowen) of 2005, which was also vetoed,
was similar to SB 1598.
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee:
5-2
Assembly Floor:
?? 48-26
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: Ballot Initiative Strategy Center
California Police Chiefs Association
Secretary of State
Oppose: California Resource Family Impact
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
AB 481 (GORDON) Page
5
AB 481 (GORDON) Page
6