Citizens in Charge

California Assembly Bill 6 requires petition firms that pay petition circulators to register with the Secretary of State’s Office, pay a fee, and train their circulators on relevant laws. The intention is to “decrease fraudulent or illegal practices in signature gathering.” To me, this bill makes no sense.

My response is formed on the mindset of a business owner or just a simple business model. A group initiating a ballot needs signatures, they go to petition firms for help. When the group and the firm sign a contract, the firm is obligated to act in the best interest of its employer; if not, possible and probable lawsuits will ensue. With this basic understanding, I cannot reason why a petition firm would have any interest in sending out signature gathers who are oblivious to the few and simple laws they have to follow as circulators.

Now the relationship between in the firm and the circulator is similar: the circulator wants to make money, and some may generally care about what they are petitioning, but they are bound by the documents they agree to sign. If they break the law, they are punished; there will always be a motif by everyone to make more money somehow, but being checked by a higher court, like the petition firm, deters most fraudulent impulses.

With such accountability through the process, why is there a need for government officials to waste the time every party involved, by mandating some frivolous training program?

This is my opinion, but California Family Council felt differently…or the same. They provided a written testimony on April 15th opposing Assembly Bill 6. I say they opposed it because they boldly state OPPOSE at the top; after reading the letter, I am not sure they re-read their work. The state the groups opinion: “CFC is an organization dedicated to the strengthening and empowering of California families… protecting their rights and privileges…CFC is concerned with continual efforts to inhibit the free exercise of the initiative process.”

This is a good start for an opposition statement; I know their stance and now look for their support. But instead of backing up their views, CFC testifies it is “pleased with the March 26th amendments, which modified the bill to require petition firms that pay petition circulators to register with the Secretary of State and have their designee go through training.” Where is the opposition? These two points are the pillars of the bill CFC is opposing, yet they testify in support of amendments which would make the initiative process more difficult.

Does that make sense to you?

Bob Weber is the Voters’ Best Friend. As Citizens in Charge Foundation’s ballot research associate, his goal is to provide greater transparency to all matters related to the ballot for the average voters across the country.