I strongly disagree with the decision to increase the number of valid signatures from 25 to 1000, particularly since the 1000 signatures collected will not apply to the total for the initiative petition.

Surely there has to be a better way to limit ballot title shopping.

FYI, for others: Sal is talking about the number of signatures required to start the process - to get a ballot title.

Under present law, you can start the whole ballot title process with just 25 signatures. (Which still didn't prevent Bill Sizemore from forging them.)

I don't know if 1000 is the sweet spot, but 25 was surely too few.

I want people collecting signatures to be trained, but the requirement of volunteers is bothersome to me--it's an unfair impedance to the right of the citizen to seek redress, IMO. Frankly, the people who most require training are the MANAGERS who send people out. Ultimately they should be responsible, and it should be on THEM to provide the proper recognized training.

Otherwise, it's a good bill.

1000 signatures for a ballot title is too low. But it's a good start.

Initiatives are very rarely about the dedicated grassroots. The number of initiatives that have gotten on the ballot with all or most-volunteer collection (and limited mischaracterization to signators) is tiny, and I'll be interested to see whether internet distribution reverses this trend. Nor is this a recent problem; we've been paying for signatures since the start (we used to pay a nickel a signature in the early 1900s).

One correction: South Dakota actually allowed statewide initiatives (1898) before Oregon, but did not have an initiative until 1908, after we had our first initiative on the ballot (1904).

According to the I&R Institute:

Oregon holds the records for the most statewide initiatives (there were 318 between 1904 and 2000), the highest average initiative use (6.6 per general election), and the most statewide initiatives on the ballot in a single year - 27 in 1912.

Initiatives are very rarely about the dedicated grassroots.

The requirement of 1000 signatures to get a valid ballot title all but assures that grassroots initiatives will soon be part of Oregon history.

The only groups that will be able to put initiatives on the ballot will be organizations with deep pockets -- which is what some have asserted that this change is really all about.

Sal... if a grassroots group can't get 1000 signatures on a major policy initiative, then is it really a grassroots group?

Or, more accurately, if they can't get 1000 signatures - how can they hope to get the tens of thousands to actually qualify the measure?

p.s. What do you think of the rest of the reforms in this bill?

There are a number of misconceptions in this thread, which is totally understandable given the complexity of the law.

1. The 1000 signatures DO count toward the total.
2. Bill Sizemore is NOT a convicted forger or identity thief, nor, for that matter, is he a paid SIGNATURE GATHERER. That provision was added pursuant to testimony by the Oregon State Police--not as a swipe at anyone--and it would NOT apply to Sizemore personally.
3. The registration system is NOT for volunteers.

Or, more accurately, if they can't get 1000 signatures - how can they hope to get the tens of thousands to actually qualify the measure?

Exactly. This bill was painstakingly crafted to actually make things easier for real grassroots groups while cutting down on the fraud and abuse in the process. There is a reason why--with the inexplicable yet notable exception of OSPIRG--the coalition against this bill is made up of rightwing astroturf groups funded by out-of-state billionaires.

I should disclose that my boss (Rep. Diane Rosenbaum) chairs the Rules Committee and that I have been up to my ears in trying to make this bill as good as can be. While I am as knowledgable as almost anyone about this bill, I am certainly not unbiased.

Or, more accurately, if they can't get 1000 signatures - how can they hope to get the tens of thousands to actually qualify the measure?

Kari,

I like the provision that you've highlighted. There is certainly great potential there for anyone who has a sizable email list and an issue that motivates people -- though it remains to be seen exactly how great an impact it will have on ballot initiative campaigns.

As to your other comment...

The issue is not that grassroots can't collect 1000 signatures. The only leftie grassroots initiatives to run in the last election cycle collected 250,000 signatures thanks to more than 1000 volunteers and paid signature gatherers despite financial opposition from labor and big business.

But the 1000 signature requirement would have prevented that effort from refiling what became Measure 47 after Portland's clean money system passed and it was apparent that some of the provisions of an earlier draft would have negatively impacted the Portland effort -- not because they couldn't collect 1000 signatures, but because of the additional time that doing so would have been involved.

Patton, thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding about the 1000 signatures applying to the final total count. It will be interesting to see whether this bill will survive the legal challenges that it will no doubt engender should it become law.

Out of curiousity, what is the rationale for exposing the initiative process to such a significantly higher level of scrutiny than any other form of lobbying activity?

Out of curiousity, what is the rationale for exposing the initiative process to such a significantly higher level of scrutiny than any other form of lobbying activity?

Initiatives aren't lobbying, they're legislating.

Initiatives aren't lobbying, they're legislating.

There is no plain meaning of the word, "petition", either legal or conversational, in which it means something other than a request.

Circulating an initiative petition is the very definition of lobbying.

The legislative act does not occur until the People cast their vote.

On this count, PanchoPDX is absolutely correct. Notwithstanding the willingness to allow circulators to distribute petitions as pdf's, the primary effect of the reforms that we've seen in the initiative process over the last 20 years is to further consolidate legislative power into the hands of the powerful, and to drive volunteers out of the initiative process.

If your primary motivation for changing the initiative process is to blunt Freedomworks or Sizemore, then maybe that's a good thing.

But if your primary motivation is to create conditions that make the legislature more responsive to the will of the People, then all you are doing is eroding one of the few remaining controls reserved to the People in an era when 70% of the money contributed to political campaigns in Oregon comes in checks written in amounts of $5,000 or more, and legislative districts are so heavily gerrymandered that there are fewer than 10 competitive seats out of 60 in the Oregon House during any given election cycle.

Circulating an initiative petition is the very definition of lobbying.

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding the point here, but it certainly seems to me that circulating an initiative petition is more akin to, say, introducing a bill on the floor of the House.

Yeah, an initiative sponsor isn't legislator - but they're legislating. At least, they're writing the legislation - and merely asking the voters to approve it. If the voters were legislating, they'd be drating, amending, etc.

Lawmaking via the Legislature and lawmaking via the People are two fundamentally different things -- but make no mistake, an initiative is about directly making laws... which is different than lobbying.

Though an initiative campaign is sort of like lobbying.

I'd like to see a robust process with tough rules for getting an initiative on the ballot -- but then mostly wide-open rules for campaigns on both sides.

Sal... to the rest of your point:

I do think your suggestion about making the legislature responsive to the will of the people... and I agree that campaign finance reform is critical...

It might be useful to do a count of ballot measures that made the ballot over the last 20 years - and a count of those that passed. And then split out the ones you would have supported, and those you would not.

I suspect you'll find, as I have, that vastly more initiatives have been proposed and passed that have done bad things rather than good.

I believe that the right restrictions will hinder the ability of astroturf mercenaries, but that initiatives that truly reflect "the will of the people" can always make it to the ballot.

The trouble on our side is that we often mistake "the will of our friends" for the "will of the people". Just because it's lefty doesn't mean that the people want it.

I suspect you'll find, as I have, that vastly more initiatives have been proposed and passed that have done bad things rather than good.

I don't disagree, but these initiatives also redress grievances that are often left long-ignored by the legislature, and in many cases are not even granted hearings because they are opposed by interests that have control over the purse strings of the caucuses and their candidates, and by extension, too much control over Oregon's legislative process.

The tobacco tax, which passed overwhelmingly by public initiative after languishing in committee for 4 sessions before it passed via the initiative is one example.

Oregon's minimum wage is another.

So is the bottle bill, state beaches, vote by mail, death with dignity, etc.

Measure 37 was bad legislation, but it has forced the legislature to implement fixes to our land-use system that the people of this state have wanted since at least the early 1990's.

Had any recent legislature been willing or able to craft a solution after 3 consecutive ballot initiative victories on that issue, we would not have been stuck with it.

As for campaign finance limits...

With all due respect, you are the one confusing what some of our friends want with what the people of this state want.

The people of this state have passed strong campaign contribution limits. Twice.

The groups that financially opposed contribution limits are basically the same groups that are currently lobbying to make it more difficult for citizens in this state to use the initiative process to address things that the legislature can't or won't deal with.

The net effect of these reforms ... whether it involves blocking efforts to limit contributions or making the initiative process more difficult is to consolidate power in the hands of the powerful.

I just don't agree that it's a good idea, even if some of the powerful happen to be our friends.

Lawmaking via the Legislature and lawmaking via the People are two fundamentally different things -- but make no mistake, an initiative is about directly making laws... which is different than lobbying.

How difficult do you think it would be to come up with a lengthy list of bills drafted by lobbyists that were sent verbatim to leg counsel?

I think this is a bit of a red herring.

Politically speaking, it's much easier to subject the initiative process to a higher level of scrutiny than it is to do the same thing to a groups that spend millions supporting candidates and millions more lobbying our legislators which is why we've waited so long for the modest reforms that we're seeing in this session.