Progressives may have created California’s direct democracy process, but it’s been conservatives who have perfected the use of it. Whether its landmark property tax reform or recalling an inept governor, limited government’s biggest victories have been through initiatives, referendums and recalls.
Ironically, today’s progressives thwart the direct democracy process with unconstitutional bureaucratic impediments to signature gathering. Most notable of these restrictions is a residency requirement for signature gatherers.
Petitions require a massive amount of signatures in a short window of time. As someone who is actively involved in these campaigns, I know that in some cases it would be impossible to gather enough signatures without using out-of-town signature gatherers.
Case in point, a San Clemente referendum to overturn a city ordinance banning second story additions. The City of San Clemente attempted to severely restrict property rights and values by banning second story home additions. My clients, property rights advocates, hired out-of-town signature gatherers to circulate petitions that would overturn the measure. Originally, the City Clerk accepted the petitions as valid. Opponents filed a lawsuit based on an unconstitutional Election Code section that requires circulators be “qualified to register as a voter of the city.”
Just recently, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente that the First Amendment protected the right to hire signature gatherers in order to meet referendum deadlines. On a practical level, the ruling will only minorly improve California’s signature gathering process. As Holly Whatley explains in the latest issue of the C & L Newsletter, signature gathering companies have long used “work-arounds.” Petitioners just “required each signer to execute a circulator’s declaration, in effect declaring they were their own circulator and also qualified to register to vote.”
However, on a philosophical level, the ruling is important because it preserves the sanctity of the petition process. Paul Jacob’s indictment in Oklahoma for similar signature gathering practices reinforces why every court ruling matters.
Read more about the ruling in C & L Newsletter.
Care to comment on today’s Lead Commentary? You can do so on the FR blog here.
Care to comment on today’s Lead Commentary? You can do so on the FR blog here.