Lawmakers want to outlaw paid initiative circulators

PHOENIX -- Arguing the process is considered by some to be "rife with fraud,'' Republican lawmakers advanced legislation imposing a new hurdle in the ability of citizen groups to propose their own laws.

HB 2404, approved Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, would make it illegal to pay initiative petition circulators based on the number of signatures they gather. Rep. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, who is carrying the bill for business interests, told committee members that Arizonans have "lost confidence'' in the process.

"I'm wondering where you got that belief from and if you have some sort of way to back that up,'' responded Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Glendale. Leach said he got it from a political newsletter.

What Leach has advanced under his name is the top priority of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It has made "reform'' of the initiative process its top legislative priority in the wake of voter approval of increasing the minimum wage.

The organization even brought out attorney Brett Johnson to argue to lawmakers why the measure makes sense.

But Johnson, under questioning from Quezada, conceded he had no actual evidence of fraud in any Arizona initiative. Instead he cited some studies from other states.

Anyway, Johnson argued, this really isn't about fraud despite the comments by Leach. Instead, he said, it's about "process.''

"That is the state's public policy and purpose to ensure the orderly processing of signatures,'' he said.

Interests which have had relative success getting what they want from the Republican-controlled legislature have lined up behind the legislation. That includes all major utilities, the Center for Arizona Policy, the hospital association and a group that lobbies on behalf of building owners and managers.

Supporters of the new restriction also include groups that have been the target of successful initiative efforts, ranging from the Arizona Cattlemen's Association which opposed the 1994 voter-approved ban on leghold traps, to the Arizona Restaurant Association which led the unsuccessful fight to quash the just-approved increase in the state minimum wage.

The measure drew opposition Teresa Ulmer. She lobbies for Living United for Change in Arizona, the group that got the Proposition 206 wage hike on the ballot, "which is probably why we're hearing this bill today.''

Sierra Club lobbyist Sandy Bahr, whose organization has been involved in several successful initiatives, said it's already difficult to get a measure on the ballot.

"Making it more difficult and more expensive is the opposite direction we should be moving relative to this important constitutional right,'' she told lawmakers.

Bahr did not dispute figures cited by Leach that show close to 36 percent of the signatures checked on petitions this past year turned out to be invalid. But she said it would be wrong to equate that with fraud, saying even technical flaws with someone's signature can invalidate it.

Nothing in HB 2404, which already has cleared the House, would bar paying people to collect signatures. But their pay would have to be based on an hourly rate or some other arrangement unconnected with how many signatures they gather.

Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, said he sees a benefit to such a change, unrelated to the question of whether petition circultors might be tempted to forge signatures to increase their pay. He said it might result in people being better educated about what they are being asked to sign.

The best comparison, he said, is going to buy a car.

"We know the salesman is paid a commission based on (the customer) being sold that car,'' Worsley said. "What did they tell us and not tell us to get us to buy the car?''

In a bid to buttress his argument, Leach pointed out that in 2009 when Democrat Janet Napolitano was governor she recommended getting rid of paying people on a per-signature basis. But Quezada said Leach was telling only half the story, neglecting that Napolitano also suggested lowering the number of signatures required to put a measure on the ballot.

Leach conceded the point. But he said lowering the number of signatures required could mean that petition circulators would not bother to seek out signatures in rural parts of the state.

And Leach rejected arguments that if paid-by-the-signature campaigns are so subject to fraud then the same ban should apply to political candidates.

On Twitter: @azcapmedia


Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comment submissions may not exceed a 200 word limit, and in order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.

The_Uppity_Peasant 1 year, 8 months ago

Corporations can anonymously donate millions to political candidates and it's called freedom of speech. But if someone gets paid to stand out there all day with petitions, then that is not freedom of speech? We ARE still teaching basic logic in schools aren't we???? Am I missing something here, are they now performing frontal lobotomies on every American newborn? This isn't rocket science folks!


IzzatSo 1 year, 8 months ago

Uppity Peasant, the aim is clear. The legislature and their corporate masters just hate it when us 'uppity peasants' make our own laws. They try everything in their power to prevent that, or make it as difficult as possible. Resist! The House, and the Senate Judiciary Committee have already caved to their masters (hint: not us) so all that's left is to protest as loudly as possible to our Senator (Sylvia Allen, if you live in district 6) that H2404 should be put in the shredder immediately. Do it before it's too late, because you can be sure puppet Ducey has his pen all poised at the ready to sign away your rights when H2404 hits his desk.