Out-of-State Ballot Petitioner Ban Upheld in Oklahoma
Brian Doherty | September 10, 2007, 11:40am
The practice of out-of-state professional petitioning is struck a blow by an Oklahoma court. In a decision last week in the case of Yes on Term Limits v. Savage, U.S. District Court Judge Tim Leonard upheld a challenged Oklahoma state law (in effect since 1969) banning out of state residents from being ballot petition circulators and signature-collectors there.
The plaintiffs (one of whom is occasional Hit and Run commenter Eric Rittberg aka Eric Dondero) argued that the Oklahoma law violated "their First Amendment rights to engage in political association and to speak on matters of public concern," as well as their "rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause to engage in political speech and to practice their chosen profession in Oklahoma" and the Commerce Clause to boot, because it reserves “the trade of gathering signatures for pay to Oklahoma residents alone.”
Judge Leonard decided that "the residency requirement is sufficiently tailored to meet Oklahoma’s compelling state interests in protecting the integrity of its initiative process and policing the process once it has been completed," largely since it is difficult, he claims, to track down or double-check, and impossible to subpoena, out of state signature collectors.
Leonard grants that the Oklahoma law "would increase the cost of the petition drive," but says "there is no indication that the increased cost would be prohibitive."
Ballot Access News's short report. The full decision.
Andy | September 11, 2007, 6:04pm | #
"While I don't like most states' ballot access requirements, I support the 10th Amendment to the Constitution."
Given your comments, you obviously do not support the 1st and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
"The state of Oklahoma has the constitutional right to protect the integrity of its ballot access process."
So you believe that the state of Oklahoma has the right to violate the 1st amendment and to prevent initiatives, referenda, and candidates that the establishment politicians do not like from making it on the ballot.
"In this case, it decided that Mr. Dondero lacked any integrity by falsifying the petition records."
I don't believe that there is any evidence that Mr. Dondero did anything wrong. The worst piece of evidence against him is that the he signed off on a few petitions and used a motel address. So what. That's where he was residing when he collected the signatures. There is nothing illegal about living in a motel. I know people who live in motels year round. What difference does it make where the signature gatherer lives? This has got NOTHING to do with the whether or not the signatures on the petition are valid or not.
"They paid him per signature for ones that were useless."
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the signatures collected by Mr. Dondero were valid. The state just didn't like the petitions that he collected signatures for because they took power away from big government so they were looking for an excuse to disqualify them.
"Not to mention that their integrity and credibility, as well as their very worhwhile effort, has been flushed down the sewer."
The REAL guilty party here is not the petition signature gatherers like Eric Dondero, but rather the establishment politicians and bureacrats who saw the initiative petitions that were being circulated as a threat to their power so they looked for an excuse to keep them off the ballot. Petition signature gatherers like Eric Dondero are merely being used as scapegoats/sacrificial lambs.
Andy | September 11, 2007, 9:31pm | #
"The State of Montana argued that we used 'bait and switch' to get voters to sign the petitions. That may have gone on. But I would submit that that would have come from the 'mercenary' petitioners who care little about the issues themselves."
I'd be willing to bet that if any unscrupulous tactics were used, it was only a very small handful of individuals who were behind it and that this does not represent the majority of signatures that were collected.
Generally speaking, when fraud occurs there is a greater chance that the fraud was committed by somebody who was hired locally off the streets than by a seasoned pro who traveled from out of state. Why? Because the seasoned pro wants to keep their reputation up so they continue to get work, whereas the person hired off the street has less incentive to do things on the "up and up" since they do not regularly gather petition signatures and therefore do not have any long term plans for such work. So banning out of state petitioners will not eliminate the possibility of petition fraud. If anything, it may actually increase it.
I think that cases of petition fraud are blown way out of proportion. I know of one initiative drive where a few petitioners committed fraud - and these petitioners in question were hired locally off the streets - and this was used as an excuse to throw out thousands of signatures that were perfectly valid, which was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The majority of petition signatures are collected in an honest manner, and as I said above, the average petitioner is certainly more honest than the average politician.
Petition coordinators & proponents have a vested interest in making sure that signatures are valid and they usually catch forgeries before they are turned in to the state.
If a petition signature gatherer is using dishonest tactics to get people to sign petitions it is not very difficult to catch them in a lie, all that it takes is READING THE FREAKIN' PETITION. If a petitioner tells you something and you don't believe what they are saying READ THE DAMN PETITION. It is really that simple. People need to take personal responsibility instead of running to the government like a bunch of cry babies.
It is funny how some people get all bent out of shape over allegations surrounding ballot initiative & referendum petitions but they completely ignore the fact that there is all kinds of fraud that takes place on a regular basis in every state legislature and city council in this country, as well as in the halls of Congress. At least with petition signature gatherers a person has a chance to READ the petition. How often does a member of a state legislature or a city council or a member of Congress give people a chance to READ a bill before they vote on it? How often does a member of a state legislature or city council or Congress read a bill themselves before they vote on it? How often does a member of a state legislature or city council or Congress ever consult you before they vote on a bill? There is FAR MORE FRAUD in the halls of government than there is in the signature collection of ballot initaitives & referenda.
