To: Chairmen Kennedy, Moran and members of the Election Laws Committee
From: Janet S. Domenitz, Executive Director, MASSPIRG
June 3, 2009
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony. The Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG), a statewide, member-supported nonprofit organization, stands in opposition to HB 559, HB 572, and HB 571, all bills which would impair the initiative and referendum process in Massachusetts.
Of the 21 states which allow for the initiative and referendum process, Massachusetts’ process is already one of the most difficult in the country; with a short window in which to collect tens of thousands of signatures, on petition papers which are strictly regulated, in a process that involves two separate trips over the course of just a couple of weeks to hundreds of city and town clerks’ offices, with an outdated county requirement, and many other restrictions, stipulations, and exactitudes. Layering additional obstacles onto this process is simply anti-democratic.
The specific provisions we oppose in these three bills are summarized below:
1-HB 572 proposes to ban payment for signature collection on an initiative petition measure.
I have been involved in over a dozen initiative and referendum campaigns over the course of my 28 years with MASSPIRG. Although it’s been minimal, I’ve seen fraud in the process. Fraud is not a function of a paid or volunteer gatherer, it’s a function of whether or not an honest person is participating in the effort. This measure will not decrease fraud. It is, at best, an empty and symbolic gesture. Some tools of democracy take resources, this already huge undertaking occasionally requires paid staff to complete. Eliminating a common payment method is tantamount to further restricting citizens from using this democratic tool.
2-HB 571 requires a petition circulator to wear an identification badge, sticker or button with further details and information. This is an unworkable, unrealistic, and impractical provision for an effort that involves collecting tens of thousands of signatures. It will have a chilling effect on the process. In many instances, petitioning is done by first time volunteers, or in groups of people sharing petition papers and passing them around at community meetings or other gatherings. Sometimes petitions are left at a table at a community meeting for people to sign at their leisure. Further, the most intrepid citizen activist will shy away from a process in which they are subject to a $500 fine.
3-HB 559 includes these two requirements and many more obligations for signature gatherers, including signed and sworn statements from signature collectors and affiliated organizations.
Based upon my experience, if you truly wanted to reduce fraud and or otherwise reform the petitioning process, you could:
1) Lengthen the amount of time allowed to qualify an initiative. The current timeline creates great pressure to get signatures quickly, which can encourage fraud.
2) Instruct the Secretary of State to develop a petition signing process that could be done on the Internet. This would make it easier for initiatives with true grassroots support to qualify and decrease the need for any paid signature gathering.
3) Encourage citizens to report incidents of petition fraud to the Attorney General whenever they encounter petitioners being untruthful or deceptive. Civic groups could also inspect signatures once they have been filed, and contact those voters listed to verify if they did indeed sign the petition.
Further, to the extent that any reform aims to address the undue influence of corporate interests on the ballot process, there are remedies that would much more effectively address the problem, such as the bill MASSPIRG promoted for many years to limit corporate spending on ballot campaigns.
I truly hope you will reject these three bills, and consider ways to make the initiative and referendum process more democratic, rather than further constrained.
Thank you for your consideration.
