(August 3, 2011) A California Chamber of Commerce-opposed bill that would have denied the check and balance on the legislative branch by the public by limiting the use of paid signature gathers critical for successfully sponsoring a referendum was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown this week.

SB 168 (Corbett; D-San Leandro) would have made it a misdemeanor for a person to pay for signature collection on a per-signature basis for state or local initiatives, referendums or recall petitions.

In his veto message, Governor Brown said he rejected the bill because “this is a dramatic change to a long-established democratic process in California. After reviewing the materials submitted in support of this bill, I am not persuaded that the unintended consequences won't be worse than the abuses the bill aims to prevent.”

It appeared that the goal of SB 168 was to prevent voter-registration fraud and ensure that voters get better information when petitioners approach them. While this is a worthy goal, CalChamber believes that SB 168 would have had the unintended consequence of limiting the public’s role in the ballot process. By outlawing payment for signature collection on a per signature basis, SB 168 would have made it prohibitively expensive to do an initiative or a recall and next to impossible to do a referendum.

Furthermore, it was unclear how limiting the payment type for signatures would have ensured that the public would have received better information when petitioners approach them.

SB 168 was likely to limit how far and wide these important election materials are disseminated — and even excluded certain areas — as petitioners attempted to reach as many California voters as possible.

CalChamber believes the current process serves as a check and balance on government. By making it harder to qualify ballot measures, SB 168 would have denied Californians the right to address grievances with government through initiatives, referendums and recalls.

Staff Contact: Jeanne Cain​