I, like many Republicans, am a philosophical libertarian. Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats have worked together to make it nearly impossible for members of other parties to win elections. Sadly, what we’ve ended up with is two parties that work together to rip off the public, exploiting wedge issues and abandoning us on issues of importance to our nation. I’m not sure how this can be changed, but I sure wish that it would.

Try HB 1407.

Thanks for pointing out the error - it is, indeed, HB 1407. Glenn referenced it correctly in the interview. I made a typo on the text for the website.

I’ve contacted the webmaster and asked him to correct my mistake.

Thanks,

Mike Ferguson
Produce/Host

Okay, I’ve read the bill, but I fail to see how requiring that petition circulators be registered voters stifles chances for third party participation.

Mike, would you please shine some light on this topic for me?

I’m not really sure how it affects third parties but it will make petitioning your government to make changes quite difficult. I know of people that have worked on petition signature gathering events that were not registered to vote and until the actual voting system becomes more level these people will probable remain unregistered. It doesn’t mean they can’t have a say in the government.

I think that petition gatherers intentionally misleading potential signators is worse than whether or not they’re registered voters.

I’ve stated numerous times on here how many times I was approached to sign the Amendment 2 petition by someone telling me that it was a proposal that “bans cloning in Missouri.”

What a joke!

Missouri formerly required petitioners to be registered voters, but I believe a court held that requirement unconstitutional.

Hi Jim,

Glenn is the “official” spokesperson for the LP, but I’ll give my personal two cents’ worth on your question.

First and foremost, it prevents a third party (like the LP or the Constitution or Green or anyone else) from having help from another state. Remember, this bill requires that petitioners be registered voters in Missouri. Having ballot access in all 50 states is important to any party and it’s common to recruit volunteers to travel to other states to help with this process.

This affects not only the availability of local and statewide candidates to be on the ballot in one particular state, it affects presidential candidates nationwide since ballot access is often among the criteria for being taken seriously by the media and the general public.

This legislation would ban, say, Mizzou or UMSL college students from Nebraska who get involved with their local campus political group from being involved here. It also would prevent a high school member of the Young Republicans or Young Democrats from being involved as well.

Getting on the ballot is how they contribute to the debate on the issues that affect the state. I think we all agree they have that right. It’s also reasonable that there be some sort of minimal threshold to get access to the ballot (although the lax requirements have not hurt California where, literally, dozens of candidates and parties regularly appear on the ballot).

This is being watched closely by the LP because Oklahoma has recently put similar laws on the books (although thier ballot access requirements are harder to reach than Missouri’s) and it has pretty much caused third parties to give up. The high signature requirements are one thing, eliminating a portion of the pool of potential petitioners is an unreasonable obstacle.

Libertarians from different states went to Oklahoma to help get ballot access by petitioning and, now, that practice is illegal there. The effort is now in the courtroom, where lawyers and judges will decide it instead of on theballot, where voters would decide it.

The real losers are the people of that state, who don’t have another choice or even a way to cast a “protest” vote.

Also, the fact that the above-referenced (and, admittedly, hypothetical) college students’ petitions would be disqualified is not only a disservice to the people who sign the petition, it is an undue obstacle to their being involved in Missouri’s political process. Why should someone’s signature (that would otherwise be valid) on a petition for either ballot access or for an initiative effort be overruled because the person gathering the signatures is 1) not registered to vote for whatever reason (age, residency, etc.) or 2) paid by the signature?

We should be wary of any effort to restrict involvement in the political process.

The LP isn’t really that likely to be affected by this legislation because in each election cycle there is almost always at least one candidate who wins enough votes to keep the party on the ballot statewide in Missouri (2% statewide is needed - about 50,000 votes in a typical general election).

I can’t speak for the LP in any official capacity, but laws like this can serve no other purpose than to keep candidates and initiatives OFF the ballot - something that is antithetical to the concept of direct and representative democracy. While the debate focus in Jefferson Ciity is likely to be on “special interest groups” who are accused of interfereing with our political process, remember that the ultimate effect is that voters would have fewer choices and we should be focused on that.

Third parties are always small and poorly funded. That’s part of starting up and wanting to affect your government. The more barriers to obtaining even minimal requirements there are, the more likely that only the well-funded groups will be able to succeed. Kind of ironic, really - that legislation purported to stop “special interest” influence would actually serve to leave access to political influence open to…special interests. Greass roots activism would take a real hit with this.

The fact that petitioners are from out of state is fair game to point out to voters if someone doesn’t like the initiative, party or independent candidate they are promoting. That’s the free market of ideas at work - people are free to refuse to sign a petition and certainly free to vote “no” on election day.

What is the harm in allowing the voters that right to choose? What is Rep. Deeken afraid of?

There’s my two cents’ worth - no refunds!!

Mike Ferguson

A review of the bill, and the statute and chapter of the law it amends, discloses that the bill only amends Sec. 116.080, which is in the chapter about Initiative and Referendum, and does NOT affect requirements for petitioning to get a new party or an independent candidate on the ballot. The requirements for a party or independent candidate petition, set forth in Sec. 115.325 in Chapter 115 (which contains the Circulator’s Affidavit, swearing only that the circulator (i.e., the petitioner) is a Missouri resident) is not addressed by the bill.

It also appears that the primary thrust of the bill is to add new verification requirements to filing requirements that have always affected only petitioners for initiative and referendum ballot measures, primarily aimed at verification of citizenship.

Here’s the summary of the bill:

HB 1407 — Petition Circulators

Sponsor: Deeken

This bill requires all petition circulators to be registered
voters who are residents of Missouri and citizens of the United
States. It also prohibits the payment of petition circulators on
a per-signature basis. Petition circulators must sign an
affidavit verifying that they meet these requirements.
Signatures gathered by persons not registered with the Secretary
of State or gathered by circulators prior to their registration
will not be counted.

Here’s the full text - I’ve used *** X *** to highlight where changes are inserted, should this bill become law.

AN ACT

To repeal section 116.080, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to petition circulators, with penalty provisions.

——————————————————————————–

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 116.080, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 116.080, to read as follows:

116.080. 1. Each petition circulator shall be at least eighteen years of age, ***a citizen of the United States, a resident of this state, a registered voter***, and registered with the secretary of state. ***No petition circulator shall be paid on a per signature basis. All petition signature-gathering activities shall be subject to the general regulatory supervision of the secretary of state***. Signatures collected by any circulator who has not registered with the secretary of state pursuant to this chapter [on or before 5:00 p.m. on the final day for filing petitions with the secretary of state] ***before the collection of such signatures *** shall not be counted.

2. Each petition circulator shall supply the following information to the secretary of state’s office:

(1) Name of petition;

(2) Name of circulator;

(3) ***Proof of United States citizenship;***

(4) Residential address, including street number, city, state and zip code;

(5) ***Proof of status as a resident of this state;***

(6) ***Proof of current voter registration in this state; ***

[(4)] (7) Mailing address, if different;

[(5) Have you been or] (8) Do you expect to be paid for soliciting signatures for this petition?

□ YES □ NO;

[(6)] (9) If the answer to subdivision [(5)] (8) is yes, then identify the payor;

(10) ***Certification that the circulator shall not be paid on a per signature basis;***

[(7)] (11) Signature of circulator.

3. The circulator information required in subsection 2 of this section shall be submitted to the secretary of state’s office with the following oath and affirmation:

I HEREBY SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL STATEMENTS MADE BY ME ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. ***I HEREBY SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT I AM LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MY SIGNATURE-GATHERING ACTIVITIES AND MAY BE HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR FRAUDULENT OR DECEPTIVE SIGNATURE-GATHERING PRACTICES. I HEREBY SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT I WILL NOT BE PAID ON A PER SIGNATURE BASIS FOR THE COLLECTION OF ANY SIGNATURE. ***

4. Each petition circulator shall subscribe and swear to the proper affidavit on each petition page such circulator submits before a notary public commissioned in Missouri. When notarizing a circulator’s signature, a notary public shall sign his or her official signature and affix his or her official seal to the affidavit only if the circulator personally appears before the notary and subscribes and swears to the affidavit in his or her presence.

5. Any circulator who falsely swears to a circulator’s affidavit knowing it to be false ***or receives payment for collecting signatures on a per signature basis*** is guilty of a class A misdemeanor punishable, notwithstanding the provisions of section [560.021] ***560.016***, RSMo, to the contrary, for a term of imprisonment not to exceed one year in the county jail or a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars or both.

This is another attempt to restrict voters’ rights to redress grievances with the GOP Legislature that has spent the last four years giving away the store to favored contributors, insurance companies, healthcare providers, and utilities or whatever Andy Blunt clients have wanted.

The provision requiring voter registration of petition signature gatherers for non-party and for only other petitions has no rational basis for the distinction, disenfranchises some Missouri voters in violation of the Misouri Constitution and, to the degree it bans the use of and movement of workers from other states to Missouri to be employed at gathering signatures , it may run afoul of the Commmerce Clause of the US Constitution.

This is just another GOP bill which will run up attorney’s fees for the state to pay to have a civil liberties group invalidate the statute. I propose a law which takes the amount of attorney’s fees paid by the state in losing these types of suits directly from the individual legislators who sponsor and vote for such ridiculous laws, including the Governor if he signs the bill into law. Such fees, when reduced to judgment, should be exempt from discharge in bankruptcy and also be deducted from legislators’ pensions or healthcare benefits, and be a lien on any legislator’s property.

Timbo, it’s been stated in here before that you’re an attorney.

I’d ask what kind of attorney you are, but it seems pretty obvious that you’re just not much of one.

I’m just wondering what class in law school teaches whining and complaining about everything republican?

Actually, Jim, lawyers as a group tend to favor Democrats, especially as wealth has become less important in influencing how one votes. Campaign contributions by lawyers, and especially by PACs affiliated with lawyers’ groups (especially plaintiff lawyers) are overwhelmingly Democrat.

Tim Hogan, yap, yap, yap, yap … uh … can I wake up now?

On a more serious note … it seems to me that with electronic voting, there is no longer any reason to restrict ballot access at all. When we had to fit all the candidates on a paper ballot of limited size, sure, that was an issue. Now, it’s no issue at all, we can have a hundred people running for alderman and it won’t cost any more than the time it takes somebody at the board of election to type the names into the computer. The only reason to restrict ballot access now is that the incumbent party wants to keep people like Mr. Ferguson out of power.

Focus. Comment 9 may have gotten lost in all the confusion, but it’s pertinent: This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with ballot access! All the words quoted in Comment 10 are limited by the context that the requirements apply only to petitions for ballot measures by initiative (the the stem cell proposition) or referendum (a seldom used procedure for people to repeal an action by the legislature).