A measure to combat fraud when gathering signatures for a ballot initiative and to make the process more transparent by disclosing its major financial backers faced a wall of opposition in the Senate.
The loudest opposition came from grassroots organizations, which felt that the measure would unfairly burden them but spare those with have more to spend.
The bill, H2338, was defeated 1-5 in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 26. It had been approved 32-27 in the House on March 15.
After seeing the vote, its sponsor said he will not try to revive the proposal this session.
“It’s dead,” said Rep. Kirk Adams, R-19.
But Adams said he has “not given up working on the initiative process” and may try to introduce something similar next session.
The measure has several controversial points, and opponents said while the intent was good, the bill would not solve problems related to the initiative process.
One critic cautioned lawmakers against “messing” with the initiative system, pointing out that it is a salient point of the state Constitution.
Another said it would make it more difficult for honest people to push for an initiative, while “crooks will find a way to get around it.”
Critics also said the trend at the Capitol during the last several years has been to try to restrict the rights of citizens to initiatives and referenda.
Lawmakers are wary, even fearful, of initiatives. Over the last several days, House and Senate leaders have remarked that this way of enacting laws has and potentially will result in problems that are difficult to fix. Indeed, the Legislature does not have the power to repeal an initiative or referendum measure, and can amend it only by a three-fourths vote of members of each chamber, and only if the change “furthers” the purpose of the measure.
Legislators also usually do not want to be seen as opposing or changing an idea adopted by the people themselves.
But Adams said he would not have proposed measures that would undermine the initiative system. What his bill attempts to root out is fraud in the petition process.
In fact, the idea was not his, he said. It has been tried in others states, and fears that it would undermine citizen initiatives — an important tool in a representative democracy — have not been realized there.
Where to money comes from
The Adams bill would require a political committee that files an application for an initiative or referendum to disclose its four biggest sources of funds at the bottom of the petition sheet, including a description of the financial backers.
If the sheet fails to list the funding sources or to indicate that the initiative has no major money backers, the signatures will not be counted.
It requires signatures on a page to come from one county only; a signature from another county (other than the county listed at the top of the sheet) will not be counted.
It mandates those who sign a petition to print their first and last names and the date of signing; and states that a third party who assists a disabled signer must write his name, address and state where the assistance is made.
Among its most contentious points is the prohibition against paying circulators — those who actually gather the signatures — per name. Instead, it introduces a flat or hourly rate of payment.
Signatures gathered by a circulator paid per signature won’t be counted, except if the circulator is a paid employee of a political party, according to a Senate fact sheet of the bill.
For about half an hour, the bill’s supporters and its critics, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee engaged in a spirited discussion about fraud and transparency in referendums and the role of direct participation in a democracy.
Leland Fairbanks, an anti-smoking advocate and a retired physician, said people are better off with what they have now than what the measure attempts to create.
Fairbanks told how the citizens’ initiative system has worked to create laws that otherwise would never have been heard at the Capitol. He characterized the current system as direct democracy at work, a tool for minorities and senior citizens such as himself to ask the people themselves to adopt or reject changes.
The activist said Adams’ measure, despite its good intention, would make it more difficult for “honest people” to put an idea to the ballot.
Under Arizona’s Constitution, 10 percent of qualified electors have the right to propose measures and 15 percent have the right to propose an amendment to the state Constitution.
The referendum power entitles 5 percent of qualified electors to put to the ballot any measure — or part of that measure — enacted by the Legislature, except those enacted immediately with an emergency clause for the preservation of public peace, health, or safety.
But fraud has made its way to petition sheets, according to Adams.
During the Senate hearing, he emphasized that his bill is not perfect, but it could help curb fraud in the petition process and put in place more transparency in the system.
He cited the case of a homeless man in Tempe who simply copied the names from a phone book to a petition sheet.
Adams said he had asked an election officer if removing the per signature payment system would help reduce instances of fraud. The answer was a “yes,” he said.
“It would reduce instances of fraud because a person is incentivized at that point to aggressively acquire signatures by hook or by crook,” Adams said.
The idea behind the bill is, in fact, nothing new. It has been tried in other states with strong referendum or initiative systems, according to Adams.
“It has not resulted in disenfranchising voters. It has not resulted in dismantling the initiative process. None of that has happened,” he said.
Critics: Bill establishes a ‘double standard’
But far from solving referendum-related problems, critics of the bill said it would only add impediments to realizing what citizens deem to be necessary, especially proposals being pushed by grassroots organizations.
“We think it doesn’t solve any problems but erects more impediments. It also establishes more of a double standard,” said Sandy Bahr of the Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter.
“Legislative referrals are not required to include the major funding from various lobbying interests that pushed them through the Legislature nor do candidate petitions require that they include their major funders on the petition,” her group said in a position paper.
“The law already requires ballot measures to disclose major funding sources on campaign materials. Some clarification and enforcement in that area might be warranted and is worth discussing,” the paper said.
Bahr told the Arizona Capitol Times that lobbying entities “don’t have to worry about getting their issues heard because they can get it here.”
“The initiative process is there for when the Legislature ignores the people,” she added.
Adams expected the fierce debate that greeted his bill in committee.
“Anytime that you are trying to make changes relative to campaigns, it is going to be controversial. I recognized that going in. But I still think it is the right thing to do, regardless of the controversy,” Adams said after his bill was defeated.
He vowed to continue holding meetings with Bahr and other stakeholders in efforts to improve or clean up the petition process.
“Everybody should have an equal chance to the ballot box, if that’s the way they choose to go,” he said. “But the process should be improved and that’s what my interest is.”