Signature gatherers flock in front of traffic areas like shopping destinations. Perhaps it's naïve on my part, but just this week I learned that these workers are paid for their time and, in many cases, for each signature gathered.
A Colorado NBC affiliate, 9News, reports that “most signature gatherers are hired by private companies and paid for each signature they receive.”
Washington state initiative sponsors must have 241,153 qualifying signatures for their idea to be placed on the ballot. This figure is a percentage of the most recent number of votes for governor.
Grassroots organizations can organize volunteers to meet the required amount but would need a statewide manpower pool. The cause behind the initiative would need to be far stronger to provoke people to action.
Because most of us can't drop everything to campaign for signatures, those with large amounts of money become the strongest petitioners. Contractors charge $1 to $3 per signature, which means that $250,000-$750,000 is needed to have not only enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot, but also a number of signatures to cushion against disqualified signatures.
In a way, it's as if our legal system has developed a method for buying laws. Want to change the world? Have money? We've got a deal for you.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, paid signature collecting was banned in 1913 and 1914 in Washington, Ohio and South Dakota. Oregon followed suit in 1935, Colorado in 1941 and Idaho and Nebraska in 1988. But in 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Colorado's ban.
Colorado along with Oregon, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota rebounded with bans on payment per signature, but such bans are considered unconstitutional in Washington, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi and Ohio.
Only Oregon, Arizona, California, Nebraska, Ohio and Wyoming require a notice on the petition indicating whether the gatherer is paid or volunteer. In Missouri, the indication is required on an affidavit filed with the secretary of state.
Voters see the signature collectors and hear the pitch. Why let the state run a monopoly on liquor when big business can do it? The enthusiasm in the voices of the collectors could be excitement over the initiatives, but it could be the hopes of another signature to line their wallets with Costco's money.
The voters sign the petition, trusting that “We the People” know whether or not the initiative should be made into law.
The collector then whips out the next petition or next seven petitions for the voters to sign.
The initiatives land on the ballot, and “We the People” cast our ballots by Super Tuesday. Sometimes we understand that certain legislation is sponsored, but not always.
And so the country is molded again and again.
The Seattle Times argues that any limits on signature gatherers should be “justified by the need for clean elections” and should apply to all gatherers, regardless of pay. This was in response to a bill that was introduced that would require paid gatherers to sign an indication that all the signatures collected were valid to the best of their knowledge.
But neither that bill nor the Seattle Times' argument goes far enough. Government should be open. When the public exercises its right to put initiatives on the ballot, it becomes a cog in the governmental system.
If a group can purchase an initiative spot on the Washington ballot, they should be transparent about their identity from the first signature collected. If they pay their signature gatherers, they should be open about it.
Those collectors should also be experts on the one initiative they present. If that collector is a volunteer, it should be declared.
The public deserves to know. If it chooses to be ignorant about issues after that, it is on them.
In fact, maybe we should write an initiative about it.
Reader Comments(0)