Program Note: www.avxm.com is the shortcut to our citizen action campaign & www.judicialcouncilwatcher.com goes to our home page.
This representative of the people is beginning to get on Judicial Council Watcher’s last nerve. While we all weren’t paying attention, Senator Ellen Corbett is currently trying to make signature gathering for recalls, referendums and initiatives substantially harder to come by. Senate Bill 168 (which has passed the Senate and Assembly and is on its way to the Governor) would prohibit the vigorous (and occasionally misleading) advocacy of paid signature gatherers. Currently, most people who want to get an initiative, recall or referendum on the ballot end up enlisting paid signature gatherers. Most of these paid signature gatherers get paid by valid registered voter signatures. If their advocacy wins the interests of unregistered voters, they also provide voter registration forms so that legitimate advocacy can be instantaneous by having unregistered voters register to vote, while gathering their signature for a recall, referendum or initiative.
To obtain enough signatures to get a recall, referendum or initiative on the ballot (currently somewhere around 807,000 for a statewide initiative) in the short amount of time permitted to gather signatures, people enlist independent contractors and pay them commissions for the very short time that they are employed. Senator Corbett’s bill would in effect, prohibit the use of independent contractors in favor of those getting an hourly wage (and all of the niceties that go along with that like workers comp, matching social security, etc) for a job that typically lasts over a few week window. Professional gatherers often advocate many petitions at once in order to maximize the possibility they will make a decent wage for that short period rather than work on one initiative. In our mind, this takes the initiative process away from the people and ensures that only the legislature, the corporations and unions have the ability of getting an initiative on ballot.
Sadly this bill is before the Guv right now, having passed both houses. This dismantling of the initiative process is a vision of former Chief Justice Ronald George and Corbett has always been a supporter of dismantling the initiative process herself as well as carrying the ball for the old chief justice. This is about more than initiatives. This is also about recalls and referendums, making it substantially more difficult to remove bad apples, like Senator Ellen Corbett. You’re probably wondering why this seemingly unrelated post is on judicial council watcher at all. We may soon need to avail ourselves of this process and at the most inopportune time, our dear Ellen is attempting to head it off at the pass by substantially raising the bar.
Please contact the Governors office immediately and ask that he veto Senate Bill 168.
Otherwise the task we may be forced to undertake may get substantially more difficult.
____________________________________________________________________________
BILL NUMBER: SB 168 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE SENATE MAY 9, 2011
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY JULY 14, 2011
INTRODUCED BY Senator Corbett
FEBRUARY 3, 2011
An act to add Section 102.5 to the Elections Code, relating to
petitions.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
SB 168, Corbett. Petitions: compensation for signatures.
Under existing law, a person who is a voter or is qualified to
register to vote in this state may circulate an initiative or
referendum petition, and a person who is a voter may circulate a
recall petition.
This bill would provide that it is a misdemeanor for a person to
pay or to receive money or any other thing of value based on the
number of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative,
referendum, or recall petition and would prescribe penalties for
doing so. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 102.5 is added to the Elections Code, to read:
102.5. (a) It shall be unlawful for a person to pay or to receive
money or any other thing of value based on the number of signatures
obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall
petition.
(b) Violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor, as follows:
(1) A person or organization who pays a person based on the number
of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum,
or recall petition shall be punished by a fine not to exceed
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), or by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and
imprisonment.
(2) A person who is paid based on the number of signatures
obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall
petition shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed
six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(c) Nothing in this section prohibits the payment for signature
gathering not based, either directly or indirectly, on the number of
signatures obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum, or
recall petition.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
Judicial Council Watcher 
JusticeCalifornia
July 24, 2011
Really, what the heck was the Senate and Assembly thinking?
JCW, will you post the number we should use to call the Governor? Maybe e-mails should be sent as well?
People this is why we need a formal organization to stay on top of all of this and send people to speak with our legislators. I am with Mermaid: when and where are we meeting?
JCW should we use the Action Campaign thread or a new thread to discuss such an organization?
Mermaid
July 25, 2011
Yes, JusticeCalifornia, we need a formal organization on the ground that can centralize action efforts. So, how do we go about doing that? Or, rather when & where!?
I also emailed the Governor’s office, but have also been spending some time doing research (a great love of many of us?)
And, in that vein, it appears this is not the only threat to our petition rights that exists on the landscape. Please see:
http://www.citizensincharge.org/badge
JusticeCalifornia
July 25, 2011
Wow Mermaid, good sleuthing. Ron George and co. have been talking about limiting (or eliminating) the initiative process for a long time. RG sycophant Ellen Corbett’s bill was the first, followed by the other two.
And of course, this was right at the time the BSA audit report on CCMS came out. Top leadership already had the draft report and knew how bad it was going to be.
MEASURE : S.B. No. 448 AUTHOR(S) : DeSaulnier and Hancock. TOPIC : Elections. HOUSE LOCATION : ASM +LAST AMENDED DATE : 07/14/2011 (Introduced February 2011)
MEASURE : A.B. No. 481 AUTHOR(S) : Gordon (Coauthor: Hueso). TOPIC : Petitions : signature gatherers. HOUSE LOCATION : SEN +LAST AMENDED DATE : 04/05/2011
(Introduced February 2011)
For a meeting: I think SF is best. When? non working hours, next couple of weeks? Where? Suggestions anyone?
SF Whistle
July 25, 2011
when-where—I’m ready….
Wendy Darling
July 24, 2011
In the infamous words of Forrest Gump: “Stupid is as stupid does.” But Corbett probably didn’t catch that movie, and instead caught a showing of Dumb and Dumber, and then decided to try her hand at politics.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
July 24, 2011
That’s my senator of the nanny state.
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
The contact information for the Governor.
JusticeCalifornia
July 24, 2011
I wrote my e-mail to the governor asking him to veto SB 168 because it removes a valuable tool from the PEOPLE’S anti-corruption toolbox (see below). Others who are willing to go on record with the governor against SB 168 should do the same. Let’s hope it is not too late. Whether it is or is not too late, the governor should know what people are thinking.
Dear Governor Brown:
PLEASE DO NOT SIGN SB 168. It will harm the public that is trusting you to make a difference in the way corrupt, wasteful “business” is being done in all three branches of CA government– but most especially, perhaps, the judicial branch.
As you are personally aware, the judicial branch is in grave need of democratization — but the State Constitution must be amended to achieve that. As you are also aware, the branch is rife with corruption at the highest levels– and the initiative/recall process is an integral tool in an anti-public-corruption toolkit.
I have written to you and provided detailed information to you in past years about corruption in the branch and the need for judicial reform. Who has the will and ability to rein in the CA judicial branch? The branch has been virtually untouchable because it appoints, utilizes, rules and/or rules upon issues involving, its own would-be overseers. When you were Attorney General, your office opined that it could not move against alleged crimes in the judicial branch because it represented the branch. Many legislators and others are, quite simply, afraid of the unrestrained power of the California judicial branch, which is extraordinarily well funded and unlike other branches of government, operates shielded by black robes of secrecy, ostensibly exempt from many state codes and public records laws. It lacks ANY meaningful oversight.
Governor, who can or will prosecute judicial branch criminals, especially at top leadership level?
The initiative process is a means by which the PEOPLE can be heard and action can be taken when the executive branch and the legislature, for one reason or another, are unable or unwilling to act.
As you are undoubtedly well aware, when the recall/initiative process is discussed in political circles, all will say it is best to get professional signature-gatherers– they know how to get the job done.
Governor Brown — please do not remove this valuable tool from the public’s anti-corruption toolkit.
antonatrail
July 24, 2011
From the Voices Education Project:
”When the preponderance of human beings choose to act with justice and generosity and kindness, then learning and love and decency prevail. When the preponderance of human beings choose power, greed, and indifference to suffering, the world is filled with war, poverty, and cruelty.”
~Mary Doria Russell in A Thread of Grace (1950- ), American novelist
Food for thought, Ms. Corbett, and stormtroopers of the borg!
Ron Branson - National J.a.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
July 24, 2011
The reason California and some other states such as Washington and South Dakota are trying to raise the bar in qualifying Initiatives on the voter’s ballot is because of the fear the establishment faced when JAIL4Judges go on the ballot in South Dakota in 2006. The system enlisted the aid of the Banks, the Oil Conglomerates, and a Union representing 50% of the nation’s insurance industries to counter the effort to bring about judicial accountability. They reinterpreted “judge” to mean every government position that makes a decision, such as school board members, County Supervisors, City Council Members, etc, They also turned the Initiative on its head stating that the objective of the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law was to allow incarcerated felons to be let out of prison so they could go after the jurors who convicted them and caused them to go to prison. They even bragged at how well this ploy worked down in Florida before the Bar Association.
The name of Ron Branson was denigrated stating that he hated America and our Founding Fathers, and was of the elk that shot and killed a federal agent in the state of North Dakota, however there was no name identification of either the shooter or the victim, even though Ron Branson in California has never in his life been in North Dakota. This is how far the system will go to seek to defeat judicial accountability to the People.
Since then, legislators begin talking about how they could pass laws to make it more difficult for the People to place Initiatives upon the state ballot. South Dakota made it a requirement that all signature gathers must live within South Dakota. This was done because Ron Branson lives in California. However, the proponent was a resident of South Dakota before many reading this were born, Also, all signatures were gathered by South Dakotans hired for this purpose. They, not Ron Branson, gathered 48,000 signatures when only 33,500 were required. They still wish to raise the bar in fear that jail4judges may again someday revisit South Dakota. A similar discussion ensued in Washington because of J.A.I.L. In California Chief Justice Ronald George stated that J.A.I.L. was out to destroy this wonderful judicial system we have here in California. Gee, one would think that somehow the judicial system that swears to uphold the Constitution, thinks that the Constitution is a threat to justice, somehow.
Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
sharonkramer
July 24, 2011
“This is how far the system will go to seek to defeat judicial accountability to the People.”
I would venture to state that they will go much farther than that. Its not possible for the tangentally involved to undo the bigger problem without acknowledging their tangental involvement. And so here we are. What do we do?
Mermaid
July 25, 2011
Well, apparently, someone at the Sac Bee agrees with us:
http://www.citizensincharge.org/blog/brandon/sacramento-bee-anti-petition-bill-would-only-empower-california-special-interests
Or, more directly:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/20/3780604/petition-gathering-bill-deserves.html
Let’s just hope it’s not too late, as pointed out already.
I found Sac Bee’s comment here most interesting, and it rings ever so loudly with unquestionable truth, not only in this particular situation but also with the Judicial Council fiasco!
“Legislators are forever looking for ways to “improve” the initiative process. And why not? Direct democracy infringes on their power.”
Direct democracy infringes on their power (stated a second time for emphasis!)
Mermaid
July 25, 2011
From reading the page on the first link I give immediately above, it would appear Mr. Paul is not the only one finding it difficult to obtain information within the state of California.
*Citizens in Charge Foundation has been working to get more detail on Secretary of State Deborah Bowen’s claim that the 33 individuals were convicted of petition-related crimes. The Secretary’s office has been unwilling to provide complete information and has denied several Freedom of Information requests.”
Ron Branson - National J.a.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
July 25, 2011
Respecting the People’s Initiative Process, Article II, Sec. 1 of our California Constitution, it is established in no uncertain terms, “All political power is inherent in the People. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”
It is therefore obvious from our Constitution that the Initiative Process is ONLY for the People and from the People. Government has no power nor jurisdiction whatsoever to meddle with this inherent power of the People, as it is exclusively a avenue of redress strictly in the hands of the People. This, of course, means that government is forbidden from altering the Initiative Process and from placing government propositions upon the California ballot.
Yet we see more than half of all propositions placed upon the California ballot every election cycle are placed there by the Legislature. Laws proposed by legislators are limited to the legislative process of proposed amendments, committee votes, readings and oppositions, and ultimately the subject of a potential veto by the governor, unlike every Initiative. By no means can it be argued that “All political power is inherent in the Legislature.”
Further, what does the word “All” mean? If all political powers are inherent in the People, then what part of political powers are beyond the reach of the People to which the Legislature if free to overrule? The answer is obvious! We are a government of the People, by the People, and for the People, and not a government of the Legislature, by the Legislature, and for the Legislature! Do I hear an Amen on this?
As powerful a Congress is, it is strictly forbidden from legislation interfering with the People’s right of redress. Proof, you ask. I thought you would never ask. Why it is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the People… to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Ahh, but you say, we are here talking about the Legislature of the State of California, not Congress. Okay, so I will take the liberty of rephrasing the First Amendment. “The Legislature of the State of California shall make no law respecting … the right of the People … to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
But now you argue, we are not here talking about redress of grievances, but Initiatives. Now what do you call the inherent right of the People to alter or reform their forms of government? I can hardly think of better words to describe “Redress.” And is this not the sole subject of our Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these rights, governments are established among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it…” If I understand our present form of government correctly, if government in any way seeks to tamper in the least with the People’s right of redress, it is open season on the offender.
Now I wish to call to your attention the sternness in which our Founding Fathers preserved this protection to the People. It does not say, “Congress shall not enforce any law,” but rather, “Congress shall make no law.” Therefore, the offense is consummated in the mere “making” of such a law, let alone the question of enforcing such law.
Stay with me, folks! it is my contention that the mere discussion and proposal of legislation to lessening the right of the People’s to redress of grievances is raw tyranny, and subjects the offender to the wrath of the People, whatever that may be, and such “legislation” is void the very moment it is “made.”
Ron Branson
Author: Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
www jail4judges org
VictoryUSA @ jail4judges.org
Judicial Council Watcher
August 2, 2011
SB168 has been vetoed by Governor Brown. Direct democracy is alive and well. For all that wrote or contacted Governor Jerry Brown, thank you for your efforts at preserving direct democracy.
JusticeCalifornia
August 2, 2011
That is very, very good news.
We need to keep an eye on the other two bills- SB 448 and AB 481.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 2, 2011
AB481 appears to be sidelined in favor of SB448. SB448 states that if you are a paid signature gatherer that you wear a badge saying “paid signature gatherer”.
A volunteer might know more about specific initiatives whereas a paid signature gatherer might be pushing a half dozen initiatives and be less knowledgeable (and maybe….misleading….) about each one. It is another nanny state bill because the voters should be able to make the decision when the comprehensive initiative is brought forth before the voters.
Generally speaking we don’t view this as the same threat as Corbett’s bill of unintended consequences. Nonetheless, we also don’t agree that SB448 is necessary because next year it will ask you to change the tag to “Signature gatherer paid by x”
Michael Paul
August 2, 2011
Oh Ellen? I think a few of my good friends might have a gift for you next year……..