BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
6
8
SB 168 (Corbett)
As Introduced February 3, 2011
Hearing date: April 5, 2011
Elections Code
MK:dl
PETITIONS: COMPENSATION FOR SIGNATURES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 34 (Corbett) - Vetoed 2010
SB 1686 (Denham) - Vetoed 2008
SB 1047 (Bowen) - Held in Assembly Elections &
Reapportionment 2006
AB 2946 (Leno) - Vetoed 2006
Support: Debra Bowen, Secretary of State; City of Murrieta;
Contra Costa County; Sierra Club California
Opposition:The Humane Society of the United States; Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Ballot Access News;
Citizens in Charge
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 168 (Corbett)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 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.
(More)
SB 168 (Corbett)
PageC
This bill provides that the penalty for the person who
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.
This bill provides that it does not prohibit the payment for
signatures that is not based, either directly or indirectly,
on the number of signatures obtained on a state or local
initiative, referendum, or recall petition.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). 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 January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
the state's appeal of this order and, on Tuesday, November 30,
2010, the Court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected as
early as this spring.
(More)
SB 168 (Corbett)
PageD
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Some signature gathering firms compensate circulators
based on the number of signatures they collect. Some
circulators reach the deadline to qualify initiatives by
illegally misinforming voters and forging names.
Circulators forged signatures onto their petitions of
names they chose from a phonebook in several states.
Others have inserted carbon paper and a second petition
beneath the original one, without the persons'
knowledge, to get their signature on another petition.
This bill upholds the integrity of the initiative
process by making it a misdemeanor to pay or receive
money or compensation based on the number of signatures
obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum, or
recall petition.
Signature gathering firms who violate this provision
would be subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or up to
one year in county jail. Circulators would be subject
to up to $1,000 in fines and/or up to six months in
jail.
(More)
SB 168 (Corbett)
PageE
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
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.
(More)
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 )
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<1>) 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
In Support of this bill, Secretary of State Debra Bowen
states:
------------------------
<1> 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 168 (Corbett)
PageG
Paying signature gatherers by signature may create an
incentive to lie or mislead voters as to what they are
really signing. Therefore, this measure has the
potential to decrease fraudulent signature gathering
practices.
The Sierra Club California, also in support, states:
We have too often seen the direct-democracy process
perverted by wealthy special interests who buy their way
onto the ballot by paying signature-gatherers a bounty
based on the number of signatures they collect, an
arrangement that encourages fraud.
4. Opposition
The Humane Society of the United States opposes this bill
stating:
Our primary concern is that if SB 168 is enacted it will
significantly increase the cost of petitioning to place
an initiative on the ballot, harming our ability to
bring important animal protection reforms before
California voters. The HSUS has used California's
ballot initiative process many times to protect wildlife
and animals raised for food. Had SB 168 been in place
during 1008, Californians may never have gotten a chance
to vote in favor of Proposition 2, the single most
important piece of legislation protecting farm animals
in U.S. history.
5. Veto of SB 34 (Corbett) 2009-10
Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a SB 34 which was identical to
this bill. His veto message stated:
The California Constitution provides an important system
of checks and balance by giving the people direct
control over their government through initiative,
referendum and recall. This bill would limit the
SB 168 (Corbett)
PageH
initiative process by prohibiting a person from paying
or receiving money or anything of value based on the
number of signatures obtained on such petitions.
As I have stated when vetoing similar legislation,
prohibitions on per-signature payments will make it more
difficult for grassroots organizations to gather the
necessary signatures and qualify measures for the
ballot. Therefore, I am unable to sign this bill.
6. Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments
Committee Vote
This bill was heard on March 15 in the Committee on Elections,
Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments. The bill passed
with a vote of 3 Ayes and 2 Noes.
**************