LD1690 - THE PROPOSED BILL. WHAT IT SAYS & WHAT IT MEANS

The following is a direct "copy/paste" of the proposed LD 1690 as it appears on the Maine State government website. The bill's sponsor is Representative Seth Berry who has been entering "Comments" on the both Monday's and Wednesday's postings regarding this Bill. You can read Rep. Berry's remarks by going to those postings and clicking on "Comments."

I encourage you all to carefully read the proposed Bill which follows. At the conclusion, you will find some comments and observations by this writer. Enjoy. RG
*****

LD1690 Second Regular Session - 124th Maine Legislature

Text:
An Act To Prevent Predatory Signature Gathering and Ensure a Clean Citizen Initiative and People's Veto Process

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 21-A MRSA §197 is enacted to read:
§ 197. List of certified signatures provided
Beginning December 1, 2010, in addition to the records to be made available in accordance with section 196, the Secretary of State shall also make available an electronic list of the names of those voters, along with their voter identification numbers, whose signatures were certified on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum. This list is subject to the fees set forth in section 196, subsection 4 and may not be used for commercial purposes.

Sec. 2. 21-A MRSA §903-B is enacted to read:
§ 903-B. Removal of signature from petition

The Secretary of State may reject certification of a signature on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum in accordance with this section.

1. Written request. A person may make a request to have that person's signature discounted from a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum by submitting a written request to the applicant for the direct initiative or people's veto. The written request must clearly state the requestor's full name and municipality of residence. A copy of the written request must be submitted to the Secretary of State. The written request, including the copy to the Secretary of State, must be submitted no later than 15 days prior to the date the petition is due to the municipal registrar or election clerk as required by section 902.

2. Information provided. The Secretary of State shall post on the Secretary of State's publicly accessible website the name and the contact information of the applicant for each direct initiative of legislation and people's veto referendum to facilitate the provisions described in subsection 1.

Sec. 3. 21-A MRSA §903-C is enacted to read:
§ 903-C. Direct initiative and peoples's(sic)veto petition organization required to be registered

A petition organization shall register with the Secretary of State in accordance with this section. The Secretary of State shall reject the certification of petitions for the direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum for which the collection of signatures was supported, encouraged or organized by a petition organization that failed to register in accordance with subsection 1 or had its registration denied or revoked in accordance with subsection 2. For the purposes of this section, "petition organization" means a person, corporation or organization that receives or enters into a contract to receive compensation for supporting, encouraging or organizing the collection of petition signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum.

1. Registration. Prior to conducting any activities related to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum for which compensation will be received, a petition organization, in addition to meeting any other registration requirement to transact business in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall prescribe the form and content of the registration and may charge a fee to administer this registration. The registration must include but is not limited to the following:
A. The ballot question or title of each direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum for which the petition organization will receive compensation;
B. Contact information for the petition organization, including the name of the organization, street address or post office box, telephone number and e-mail address;
C. The name and signature of a designated agent for the petition organization; and
D. The name of each person who will receive compensation for activities related to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum.

The information contained in this registration must be made available for public inspection and must be posted on the publicly accessible website of the Secretary of State.

2. Denial or revocation of registration. The Secretary of State may deny the registration of a petition organization if that petition organization or any of its principals has been found via judicial or administrative proceeding to have violated any laws relating to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum in this State or any other state within the previous 10 years. The Secretary of State may revoke the registration of a petition organization if the petition organization authorized or knowingly permitted any of the following:
A. Allowing a signature on the petition of a person other than the person signing;
B. Allowing someone other than the person who signs the oath on the petition to collect signatures for that petition;
C. Falsifying the name or address of the circulator on the petition;
D. Inducing people to sign a petition or withdraw their names from a petition by offering money or other things of value; and
E. Violating the laws and rules governing notaries public.


Sec. 4. 21-A MRSA §905, sub-§2, as amended by PL 1987, c. 119, §1, is further amended to read:

2. Superior Court. Any voter named in the application under section 901, or any person who has validly signed the petitions, if these petitions are determined to be invalid, or any other voter, if these petitions are determined to be valid, may appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by commencing an action in the Superior Court. This action shall must be conducted in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80C, except as modified by this section. In reviewing the decision of the Secretary of State, the court shall determine whether the description of the subject matter is understandable to a reasonable voter reading the question for the first time and will not mislead a reasonable voter who understands the proposed legislation into voting contrary to his that voter's wishes. This action must be commenced within 5 10 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State and shall must be tried, without a jury, within 15 days of the date of that decision.

Upon timely application, anyone may intervene in this action when the applicant claims an interest relating to the subject matter of the petitions, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. The court shall issue its written decision containing its findings of fact and stating the reasons for its decision within 30 days of the commencement of the trial or within 45 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State, if there is no trial.

Sec. 5. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, first ¶, as amended by PL 2009, c. 190, Pt. A, §20 and c. 366, §7 and affected by §12, is repealed and the following enacted in its place:


Any person not defined as a political action committee who receives contributions or makes expenditures, other than by contribution to a political action committee, aggregating in excess of $5,000 for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum must file ballot question reports with the commission in accordance with this section. Within 7 days of receiving contributions or making expenditures that exceed $5,000, the person shall register with the commission as a ballot question committee. For the purposes of this section, expenditures include paid staff time spent for the purpose of influencing in any way a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum. The commission must prescribe forms for the registration, and the forms must include specification of a treasurer for the committee, any other principal officers and all individuals who are the primary fund-raisers and decision makers for the committee. In the case of a municipal election, the registration and reports must be filed with the clerk of that municipality.

Sec. 6. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2, as amended by PL 2009, c. 190, Pt. A, §20, is further amended to read:

2. Content. A report must contain an itemized account of each expenditure made to and contribution received from a single source aggregating in excess of $100 in any election; the date of each contribution; the date and purpose of each expenditure; the name and address of each contributor, payee or creditor; and the occupation and principal place of business, if any, for any person who has made contributions exceeding $100 in the aggregate. The filer is required to report only those contributions made to the filer for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum and only those expenditures made for those purposes.

The definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" in section 1052, subsections 3 and 4, respectively, apply to persons required to file ballot question reports.


Sec. 7. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2-A, ¶B, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:

B.Funds provided in response to a solicitation that would lead the contributor to believe that the funds would be used specifically for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum;

Sec. 8. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2-A, ¶C, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:

C.Funds that can reasonably be determined to have been provided by the contributor for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum when viewed in the context of the contribution and the recipient's activities regarding a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum; and


Sec. 9. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§4, ¶A, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:

A.The filer shall keep a detailed account of all contributions made to the filer for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum and all expenditures made for those purposes.

summary

This bill requires the Secretary of State to make electronic lists of certified signatures from petitions for direct initiatives of legislation and people's veto referenda beginning December 2010. The bill also extends the time period that a person has to examine petitions when challenging the decision of the Secretary of State from 5 to 10 days. The bill authorizes the Secretary of State to reject certification of signatures on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto if the person who signed the petition submits a written request to the direct initiative or people's veto applicant 15 days prior to the date when the petitions are due to the municipal clerk for verification. This bill also requires registration of organizations that receive compensation to collect or support the collection of signatures on petitions for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum. Finally, this bill makes a technical clarification to the campaign finance and disclosure laws regarding ballot question committees.
(No information was provided to define this "clarification. RG)

*******
COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS:

This writer grew up here in the Bangor area during a time when civic responsibility was taught alongside the meaning of what the American Revolution was all about - the sacrifices by the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) so that we, each of us, would have the freedom and liberty to direct and define our government. And if those we elected failed to "get the message we sent", we retained various ways to get our government back on the track. We can vote them out of office (not a bad idea these days) and we can initiate legislative actions that our state legislators have failed to do on their own despite our communications to do so, and we can initiate initiatives to repeal the actions of our legislatures that we do not support - actions which may have been taken without our support in the first place.

Back in the 50's when I was growing up here and attending public school in Bangor, I can remember some very spirited discussions at Garland Street Junior High (now called William H. Cohan, one of my high school classmates) and then at the "original" Bangor High School next to the Bangor Public Library. Maine was well populated with strong-minded, public spirited people in those days - every bit as adamant in their thinking as many are today. What I don't recall is hearing my parents talk about too many initiatives happening then. But then I married and we began our move Westward Ho. And during those travels I lived in many states where the people's initiatives are not uncommon. Because, in a country that is supposed to be governed by people elected to represent the people, the elected ones are often out of touch with what the PEOPLE really think, want and believe is right. And it is the people's responsibility to speak up and act. It can be via a people's initiative or it can be via a people's Tea Party (in Boston in those early days or a newer version these days). But, this country - AND THIS STATE- belong to the people. Maybe it's time this state's legislature hear that message instead of trying to smother it, hog-tie it, or tax it to death.

Personally, I think that as long as the PEOPLE have the right to petition via initiatives to "set their government straight", we will always be closer to the freedoms the Founding Fathers and Mothers intended for this country - particularly when state governments have the tendency as of late to pass taxation bills at the last minute, with no public hearings, in the dead of the night before shutting down their last session of the season! However, when the people's government attempt to choke off the free access of the people by the establishment of "lists" of names of those who sign petitions to repeal legislation or to force government to do the people's will, it becomes too much like Richard Nixon for his own personal vendetta or too much like Adolph Hitler to my way of thinking.

Let us examine just two small sections of this proposed Bill -

Section 903-B The Removal of Signature From Petition. Nowhere in this section do I find any procedure where the Office of the Secretary of State is required to contact ME to verify that I am the person who wrote a letter requesting to have my name removed from a petition I may (or may not) have signed. The letter writer is only required to provide my name and municipality - not my actual address and mailing address or any other verifier. And what if it is not my actual signature? What if it does not match the signature on the petition? Is anyone required to crosscheck that to verify that I am both the signer on the petition AND the signer of the letter requesting to have my name removed from the petition. This would be easier to do that voter fraud. It seems to me that most petitions have to have the signatures verified by the clerk in the local municipality before the petitions are forwarded to the Secretary of State. That is the place where the signer's signature is most likely to be verifiable.

Also, in the summary, it states the time period would be extended from 5 days to 10 for a party to challenge the Secretary of State's decision to verify the validity of petitions (and the necessary number of certified signatures) to qualify an initiative or repeal action for the ballot.
QUESTION: Where is the fairness in this when the Legislature passes taxation bills in the dark of night with no public hearings at the last moment before shutting down the legislative session? Does this sound like "justice for all" or only for members of the government? If all of the signatures have to be certified BEFORE being submitted to the Secretary of State in the first place (and they are at the local municipalities within 5 days which we all voted on this past election, remember), this little "quirk" seems to be a sneaky attempt to thwart the people's will. And by whom? Must be the Bill's sponsor. One must question his motives, readers. One must.

However, I can see where this proposed Bill would come in very handy to members of the Legislature if they wanted to prevent Mainers from being able to object via the repeal process to actions taken by the Legislature, such as the current activities regarding the so-called Tax Reform Bill or the School Consolidation mandate. Have you ever read how goose pate is made. That's what this proposed Bill makes me think of (forced feeding) with no legal objection process.

Just look at the title of the Bill: An Act To Prevent PREDATORY Signature Gathering ....The title alone is a bit inflammatory - biased, maybe. But perhaps there is a back story to this effort.

With all due respect to Representative Berry, the Legislature's Democratic majority whip, one has to question his motives in sponsoring this bill. Could it be it has something to do with the repeal initiative regarding the Tax Reform Bill that was soooo successful. In a column by Prof. John Frary that appeared in the Machias Valley News Observer on September 16, 2009, the Professor wrote: (now read carefully, people - all the way through)

"The biggest surprise among a number of surprises is that total of over 60,000 signatures is (sic) a short period of time. The experts, the pundits, Those Who Know declared the effort doomed to failure. There wouldn't be enough time. There was no media budget-not a cent. Sen. David Traham (Rep.Wiscasset,etc.) himself, although he knew the tax "reform" bill was a stinker, doubted success until he set about the job of circulating petitions himself. Then he discovered that about 80% of Maine citizens were ready, even eager to sign. He now vows that he will never again question Charlie Webster's political judgement (Charles Webster, Republican State Committee Chairman).

"This has been the fastest and cheapest petition drive in Maine history.

"Another surprise was a unique bi-partisan effort uniting the Republican and the Green Parties. The two parties agree on two things, that the petition process itself is vital to effective democracy and that LD1495 was primarily designed to gouge the working class. In fact. the Greens' contribution turned out to be indespensable to success.

READERS - PAY ATTENTION TO THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH FROM PROF. FRARY'S ARTICLE.

"The Democrats awoke to the danger to their tax scheme and sprung into action too late to avert the peril. This was not for lack of zeal. Representatives Seth Berry (Bowdoinham, etc.), James Martin (Bangor, Orono, Veazie) and Jon Hink (Portland) made every effort to interfer with people trying to sign. Rep. Berry, Democratic majority whip, made himself especially obnoxious at Windsor Fair; to the extent he put himself in danger of being smacked upside the ear hole by Vickie Webster, normally a peaceable woman who takes a dispassionate view of politics. There's been talk of an ethics charge against this pest.

"One petition worker in Portland had his car windows smashed and 1200 certified petitions stolen. Another, working the Windsor Fair, had 600 uncertified petitions stolen. Rep. Cebra (Naples, Casco, part of Portland) had his car keyed. Someone let the air out of the tires of the GOP state party executive director's SUV...."

Sounds like a bunch of thugs to this writer and not the kind of people to whom any good citizen should be entrusting our democracy, personal rights or liberties.

In conclusion, you readers will have to make up your own minds. But, if you think this Bill - LD1690 - is an affront to your civil liberties and rights as a taxpayer and voter, I strongly suggest you screen down to the posting from this past Monday (February 15) and find the names and email addresses of the various committee members and start sending them a piece of your mind. Your taxes have paid for a long email and I'm sure you will have a word or ten to say on the subject.

As for me, I think this LD 1690 is intended to keep us corraled, silent and in "Sheep Mentality" (while being taxed to death or to the point of leaving this state). As a citizen and voter, I am insulted. I read every petition I sign. I know what I believe and what I disagree with. Don't know too Mainers who differ in that regard.

Now when it comes to PREDATORY Legislators, they're more prevalent around here than cockroaches in Los Angeles.