Becky Edwards

We just voted on 2nd Substitute, SB 275, “Removing Signatures from Intiative and Referendum Petition,” Sen. Howard Stephenson. This is a bill allows an easier process for people to remove their names from a petition for an initiative or referendum. It also allowed that if this bill received 50 votes or more then the effective date would be immediate. Let me clarify my vote on this bill, which was no.
1. I am supportive of making the standard for removal of a name a less onerous process. To require a notary to remove one’s name is a difficult and in some rural situations, an unworkable situation. This aspect of the bill just makes removal more in line with the level of ease one has when they add their name to a petition. It is a good idea.
2. The date for which petitions must be submitted to the county clerk’s office is April 15th. This bill provides that people can remove their names until May 15th. This is akin to a soccer game ending, stoppage time being added and only one team gets to go back out to play. The list of petition signers becomes public upon submission to the county clerk, so from April 15th to May 15th opposers of an initiative can continue to contact those in critical areas and encourage them to remove their names. Remember the bar for signature gathering is set fairly high already, with 26 of 29 counties being required to gather a percentage of the people who have voted in the last gubernatorial election. In some rural counties it would not be difficult for some dedicated folks opposed to a petition to lobby citizens to remove their names, therefore upsetting the petition’s compliance with initiative requirements. That being said, I can live with this part of the bill. This does not prevent or speak directly to people either supporting or opposing a particular initiative or referendum from shoring up their side of the argument during that month time. The supporters could work to maintain the signatures they have and the opposers could work to remove the signatures. It seems like a set up for an invigorating four weeks. I would still support the bill with this language.

3. With a 2/3 vote of the legislature this bill goes into effect immediately. This is where the bill lost my support. I find it extremely troublesome to change the rules in the middle of the game. Specifically we have two initiatives in process now. They have been proceeding in good faith under one set of requirements. To change this for them in the middle of their efforts seems a direct attack on these two particular initiatives. As legislators we should make decisions based on good policy, and remove ourselves from the temptation to block a process that is being legally followed by a group whose ideas we do not support. Regardless of the support or opposition we as legislators have for the two current initiatives, it is not fair and good policy to change the policy in the middle of the process and that appears to be at least somewhat based in bias against the concepts within the initiatives.

Bottom line: I support the initiative process. And I believe the process could be improved by the provisions included in this bill allowing a greater ease to remove names from the petition. I also could support the changes in dates as described earlier. However, I just could not support the immediate enactment. Without the removal of that aspect of the bill, I simply could not support it.

However, it passed, 50-24. As such this bill will take effect upon approval by the governor.

**NOTE:  I appreciate the correction on the initiative process I just received from Bob Bernick that are  included in his comment below.  The law for signature collections actually requires that 10% of voter signatures must be collected in 26 of 29 Senate districts, NOT counties.