The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that an Arizona law that bans out-of-state residents as petition circulators is unconstitutional. The logic of the decision, according to "Ballot Access News," would apply to circulation of any types of petitions. The court also ruled unconstitutional in the same case (brought by Ralph Nader) a separate Arizona law establishing a deadline for independent presidential candidate’s filings to be on the state ballot. But the big constitutional victory was on petition circulation.
Readers will know I have posted in the past and criticized restrictions government places on who may circulate a petition. The Federal constitutional right to petition government does not evaporate just because someone crosses a state-line, and whether or not a petition circulator gets paid does not sully or diminish that important right.
A tactic of liberals in California to dillute the people’s power of initiative guaranteed by the State Constitution, and thereby build up the power of our gerrymandered permanent Democratic-dominated state legislature, is to impose every obstacle they can to petition circulation. These liberals don’t want "people power" to be available to trump the institutional Democrat power base in Sacramento. Conservatives must always be on guard about "reform" proposals that seek to reduce "people power" through the initiative. One way the liberals strive to reduce "people power" is by attacking folks who circulate initiative petitions. So they pass laws cluttering-up the petitions with needless warnings (hoping to reduce participation), and restrictions on who can circulate petitions, including banning circulators from outside a community in the state, or from another state. Many of these so-called "outsider" restrictions are laws currently on the books in cities throughout California, but they are really intended to simply reduce the initiative power itself and expand the power of government.
The 9th Circuit’s decision now helps tilt the law a lot more back in favor of "people power," and that is a very good thing.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jim:
With respect to charter law cities, is there anything precluding the use of signature gatherers from outside the city?
What if a charter law city has language specifically requiring that all circulators be residents of that city?
July 10th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Good question. Under this new case in the 9th Circuit, nothing precludes the use of signature gatherers not only out of the city, but also out of the state.
Newport Beach is a charter city with such a restriction, though I am not sure the restriction is in the charter. Regardless, such restrictions are in my opinion unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. The cases supporting this view include not only the recent one (Nader v. Brewer, available on the 9th Circuit website) but also the U.S. Supreme Court case of Meyer v. Grant, Buckley v. ACLF, and Chandler v. City of Arvada.
The city should be asked in advance if they intend to enforce the restriction, and if they state they intend to enforce it, there are grounds for a civil rights action to enjoin the charter provision (or other provision) under Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Attorneys’ fees can be awarded to a successful litigant under Section 1988 of the same Act.