HB2404 could resolve legal questions over pay-per signature payments

Regional News

Audio By Carbonatix

From AZ Capitol Times:

If a bill to ban pay-per-signature payments for Arizona initiatives and referenda becomes law, it could help resolve a long-simmering legal battle that has split federal appellate courts across the country.

Several U.S. circuit courts have already ruled on per-signature payment bans, but the results have been mixed. And though the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down outright bans on paying petition-gatherers, it has not opined on bans such as the one that Rep. Vince Leach and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry are proposing in HB2404.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court in 2006 upheld a similar ban in Oregon in Prete v. Bradbury.

In that case, the 9th Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the ban would severely burden their First Amendment rights. The state sufficiently showed that the prohibition, known as Measure 26, was aimed at the legitimate state interest of combating fraud by petition circulators.

The 8th Circuit upheld a similar ban in North Dakota in 2001, while the 2nd Circuit upheld New York’s version of the ban in 2006.

Meanwhile, the 6th Circuit in 2008 struck down an Ohio law making it illegal to compensate petition circulators based on the number of signatures they collected.