A bill that would ban paying petition signature collectors by the signature faces a tough Judiciary Committee hearing in the coming days following a narrow passage of the bill in another committee earlier this week.
Senate Bill 660, authored by Senator Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) would specifically prohibit a person from paying money or providing any other thing of value based on the number of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition. Penalties would be severe, with civil penalties costing signature collectors $50 for each signature gathered under the by-signature pay rate or $25,000, whichever one is more. It also instructs the Attorney General to get involved in any violations by bringing civil action.
Senator Newman, who was ousted in a recall election in 2018 over his support for a gasoline tax before narrowly winning his seat back last year, wrote SB 660 in response to many recent petition drives implementing such a pay structure, which he believes leads to inflated supporter signature numbers and bringing an undue number of petitions, recall or otherwise, to the ballot. Combined with the also recently passed-by-committee SB 663, which would provide an elected official who is the subject of a recall election the names and addresses of every voter who signed the petition to “make sure that they “understood the recall petition they may have signed”, Senator Newman is aiming to make recall elections harder to bring about in the future.
“Most elected people don’t think much about the prospect of being recalled,” said Senator Newman of his pair of bills recently. “Every time another one happens, there’s general agreement, ‘That’s not what people had in mind when they created this process.’ But once it’s over, we move on. I think it’s appropriate that we revisit these institutions and make sure they are still working the way they were originally intended.”
However, opposition against SB 660 has also been strong since the bill was introduced in February. Many voter groups, such as the League of Woman Voters and many minority organizations have come out against the bill, noting that the per-signature pay structure is needed for petitions, especially in more localized places and for referendum petitions.
“SB 660 would hurt so many organizations,” explained Ramon Vasquez, a petition consultant who has advised on petition signature gathering in Latino and Mexican-American neighborhoods in Southern California. “They’re trying to make it seem like some sort of great evil, but this sort of pay structure really makes sense. It’s like getting paid on commission or by performance….”
If you lose, change the rules. That’s exactly what the Democrats are scheming to do with the packing of the Supreme Court (and, similarly, with the abolition of the Senate filibuster). It’s about power, not democracy. Otherwise, they would wait until future election results and Supreme Court vacancies. It’s like the story reported by The Babylon Bee: “Losing Baseball Team Suggests New Rules Allowing Them To Add 4 Players To The Field.”
Endorsed and funded by Big Abortion (Planned Parenthood) and government labor unions, Mr. Newman is trying to pay them back. Pay to play.
Why doesn’t he propose not allowing labor unions to forcibly take dues from their members for deposit into his campaign war chest?
(A bit of relative good news: at least he’s not a Catholic; like Newsom, Pelosi, Biden and other betrayers of life and liberty.)
Let’s keep in mind that Dems want to expand the court because Moscow Mitch refused to give Merrick Garland so much as a hearing 10 months before the 2016 election, yet pushed Amy Barrett in days before the 2020 election.
Let’s also not forget that President #45 is still whining to this day over his (false) assertion that he really won the 2020 election, and tried to change the rules about how votes were counted. He said, among other things, that votes needed to be counted on election night. Well, that has never been the case. Military ballots, for example, were always counted after election day.
The Senate was controlled by the Republicans. Imagine if it were the other way around. Let’s take a guess what would happen! As far as true assertion that there was massive voter fraud and it was the Democrats who changed all the rules and used the pandemic for fraud, nice try. It’s just amazing to me that the Far Left turns every issue into a distortion of the truth. Everything that they accuse Republicans of, the Democrats are guilty of. But no more because the fake news is being exposed. Thank God for Trump!
The only thing massive is the lie that there was massive voter fraud. Dozens of courts have said there was no massive fraud, including the Supreme Court. Several Republican governors and Secretaries of State have said so. Even Moscow Mitch said so.
And to Juan below: such a Christian way to disagree. Offer no Argument or Fact at all. Just call your opponent stupid. Works every time.
Nice try but again no one examined the evidence. The courts never heard any the specifics, they just rejected them outright. You have to be blind not to see what the crooked Dems did with their changing of the rules, the counting of the ballots and exploiting the pandemic for their own own criminal agenda. And presenting their cases in largely unfriendly or hostile venues didn’t help. The court system is no exception to the fading of America’s traditional culture and rule of law. Unfortunately even the Supremes succumbed to pressure and refused to act. And the RINO’s like the loser Mitch (he goes where ever the Devil leads him) and the other cowards who were too afraid to acknowledge the fraud because they feared the consequences were a joke. But we’ll see how that worked out for them when they have their primaries.
The Supreme Court reached no such conclusion. It didn’t even hear any cases. It refused to hear any cases on the basis of lack of standing.
Anonymous (or YFC?) Well, well, well. I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring up the recent Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a case pertaining to voter fraud. But again the Supreme Court never heard any of the evidence and dismissed all cases mostly for lack of standing. What does that prove?
Your Fellow Katholic: “Let’s keep in mind that Dems want to expand the court because Moscow Mitch . . . ”
Unbelievable stupidity (or deliberate dishonesty).
Enlighten us with your wisdom, Juan! Throw out a single fact. Go ahead!
But ballot harvesting still allowed.
Good point. And, California is the only state where the number is not limited at all (or limited by family/household/caregiver relationships).