Court ruling backs independents, paid circulators

PHOENIX — A recent court decision gives non-residents the right to gather petition signatures for political candidates and ballot initiatives.

While guaranteeing Constitutional rights to signature gatherers who are not Arizona residents, some are concerned the ruling may end up spoiling local contests by allowing rich, out-of-state interests to pay circulators who don’t have ties here and hijack the ballot.

Rick Heumann, a Chandler City Council candidate, is one of those concerned voices. He says he has worked on several campaigns advocating initiatives in the past and has seen how “big money” can change the dynamics of voting.

“I have a concern about the whole process,” Heumann says. “It shouldn’t be influenced through money.”

Brewer’s state elections director, Joe Kanefield, says his office intends to appeal the ruling.

FIRST AMENDMENT AT ISSUE

The hubbub stems from a June 9 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges were responding to a 2004 complaint filed against Arizona elections officials by third-party presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who claimed the 90-day deadline that independent candidates faced for submitting petitions was unfair.

The court agreed. As a result, the state Legislature will have to come up with a new deadline that could improve independent candidates’ chances of getting on the ballot.

But perhaps more importantly, the court also ruled that it is illegal to restrict non-Arizona residents from circulating petitions for presidential candidates and initiatives.

“The residency requirement nevertheless excludes from eligibility all persons who support the candidate but who, like Nader, live outside the state,” Judge Mary Schroeder writes for the court in her summary opinion. “Such a restriction creates a severe burden on Nader and his out-of-state supporters’ speech, voting and associational rights.”

The case could, however, raise questions for Republicans and Democrats because the inclusion of a third-party candidate could take away votes form either party’s candidate. It would also allow non-Arizona residents to circulate petitions, so paid signature-gathering companies will still be permitted to send employees from other states and hire non-residents.

Special interest groups frequently use signature-gathering firms. The court’s decision could effect the upcoming elections because groups with more monetary support will be able to get the required signatures faster and more efficiently, says Patrick Kenney, chair and professor of political science studies at Arizona State University.

“Interest groups have been pushing legislation for years and this [the use of signature gathering firms] is just another venue they use, and it is legal,” Kenney says.

It’s a First Amendment issue. The U.S. Constitution gives the people the right to organize, so there is virtually no way to regulate groups with alternative interests, Kenney says.

Still, Heumann says he prefers organic signature-gathering. He cites his experience with the successful ballot initiative that banned smoking in most restaurants in 2004.

He says the campaign, which was also backed by the American Heart and Lung Association, was a grassroots-type campaign where individuals volunteered to get signatures. “People came and helped out because they wanted to,” he says.

Heumann says he does not support the Ninth Circuit court’s decision because it opposes the original design of initiatives themselves. For everyday people to get something on the ballot takes time and effort, he says.

VOTERS COMPLAIN OF DECEPTION

The issue of paid signature gatherers is a sticky one for state elections officials. Although the court has asserted their Constitutional rights, these circulators are the root of numerous voter complaints come election time, Kanefield says.

He says the majority of complaints are from people who say they were lied to by petitioners. They claim petitioners told them they were signing to support one thing when in reality they were signing something completely different.

“Most people are upset because they feel misled, or that the petitioners are too aggressive,” Kanefield says. “There have also been complaints that petitioners are not disclosing information on whether or not they are being paid.”

In response to those complaints, the Arizona Secretary of State’s office has supported a new law that will require all petitioners to be truthful, Kanefield says. The law sponsored by Peoria Republican Bob Stump Jr. makes misleading voters about what petitions they are signing a class 1 misdemeanor. Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law this summer.
= = =

>>Email the editor at aklaw@zoniereport.com.