Policing the Ballot: Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters and Prohibitions on Volume-Based Compensation for Paid Signature Gatherers

25 Pages Posted: 31 May 2011 Last revised: 3 Oct 2012

See all articles by Joel F. Murray

Joel F. Murray

University of California, Davis - School of Law; London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE); University of Washington; Georgetown University Law Center

Date Written: May 27, 2011

Abstract

This article examines the constitutionality of statutes prohibiting volume-based or per signature compensation for paid signature gatherers who seek voter signatures in order to qualify a proposition or initiative for public vote. 24 states and the District of Columbia utilize the statewide ballot initiative. Special interest groups and individuals often use the ballot initiative to pass legislation lacking support in the legislature.

In order to qualify a proposition for the ballot, special interest organizations often hire paid signature gatherers to solicit voter signatures in support of qualifying the proposition. Paid signature gatherers generally receive per signature or volume-based compensation. An increase in signature fraud, as well as criticism of the prominent role of special interest organizations in the ballot initiative process has accompanied the growth of paid signature gathering. In order to curb signature fraud and special interest organization abuse of the ballot initiative process, multiple states have enacted laws limiting the forms of compensation available to paid signature.

In Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters, 518 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2008), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an Ohio statute that prohibited volume-based or per signature compensation of signature gatherers. The article reviews this decision. It begins by reviewing the history of the ballot initiative in the United States and federal case law that governs the regulation of the ballot initiative process. Next, the article reviews and analyzes the Deters decision. The article concludes the court wrongly overturned the Ohio statute because the court improperly applied exacting scrutiny, did not find a compelling state interest in preventing signature fraud, and ignored the negative effects that volume-based compensation imposes on democracy.

Keywords: ballot initiative, paid signature gathering, circulators, direct democracy, petition, local government law, election law, First Amendment, Deters

Suggested Citation

Murray, Joel F., Policing the Ballot: Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters and Prohibitions on Volume-Based Compensation for Paid Signature Gatherers (May 27, 2011). University of Virginia Law School, Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. 28, No. 1, Fall 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1854676 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1854676

Joel F. Murray (Contact Author)

University of California, Davis - School of Law ( email )

Martin Luther King, Jr. Hall
Davis, CA CA 95616-5201
United States

HOME PAGE: http://www.joelmurray.org

London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE) ( email )

Houghton Street
London, WC2A 2AE
United Kingdom

University of Washington ( email )

Seattle, WA 98195
United States

Georgetown University Law Center ( email )

600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
49
Abstract Views
663
PlumX Metrics