CHAPTER VI

THE MAKING OF PETITIONS

I

The Percentage of Signatures Required

UNDER the constitutional provision now in force an initiative measure may be proposed by a petition signed by a number of "legal voters" equal to eight per cent of the votes cast for justice of the supreme court at the election next preceding the filing of the petition, and a referendum may similarly be called by a petition containing five per cent of this number. No distinction in this regard is made between statutes and constitutional amendments. The actual number of signatures required of course automatically increases roughly in proportion to the increase of the number of the qualified voters of the state. The number of signatures required for measures submitted at the election of 1904 was 4386 for referendum petitions, and 7018 for initiative petitions. These numbers have increased until at the election of 1914, 6312 signatures were required for referendum petitions, and 10,099 for initiative petitions.

On account of the ease of securing signatures under the present provisions and the consequent over-burdening of the ballot with initiative and referendum measures, there has been some agitation for the increase of the percentages at present required.? However, the successful operation of the system of direct legislation in Oregon has been attributed in part to the low percentages

1 Constitution, art. 4, sec. 1 (1902). Sometimes petitions are circulated against the proposed submission of measures to the voters.

2E.g. Senate Concurrent Resolution, 1911, no. 13.

1

heretofore required. "To go beyond this is to make it almost impossible to submit any measure that is desired in the interests of the common people, or those who have little money or none at all besides what they earn by day's wages." But most of the criticism of the present low percentages is based upon the abuse of direct legislation by narrow selfish interests to the detriment of the public welfare. Raising the percentages would simply result in increasing the amount of fraud already prevalent in the circulation of petitions. However, it is probable that the increase of actual numbers required in the future by the extension of suffrage to women will render petition making really more difficult. "It might be inferred from casual consideration that when the voting population is doubled the ease of obtaining signatures is increased in the same proportion. This might be true if the added voters were men and if all direct legislation and all recalls were founded on widespread public demand. But hard cash is the motive power that turns the petition machinery of these newly-adopted principles of government in Oregon. . . . The petition circulator is paid by the name. He gets the names in the barrooms, cigar stores, on the street corners and at the noon hour near the large factories. He operates where men congregate. Where do women congregate? At any place where a paid petition circulator can approach them? Doubling the voting population by giving votes to women will not double the number of loafers in the saloons, increase the crowds in the cigar stores or augment the pedestrians on the street. A male solicitor would not have much success in stopping women on the street. A female solicitor might meet with a small measure, though we doubt it. About the only additions to the solicitor's prey will be in the factories, where women are employed. But in return for this small help he must get double the number of names." 193

1 W. S. U'Ren, quoted in Equity, vol. 14, pp. 18–19 (1913). Cf. Equity, vol. 13, pp. 65-6 (1911). 2 Below, pp. 65-8. Oregonian, Oct. 14, 1911, p. 10, col. 1. See also ibid., Oct. 14, 1912, p. 6, col. 2.

It should be mentioned in this connection that sometimes a large surplus of signatures is obtained, partly as a safeguard against failure of a measure from the presence of irregular signatures, and partly from prestige real or supposed, given a movement backed by many petitioners.

But the number of signatures does not, even in the absence of fraud, under present conditions, give any true indication of public opinion in regard to the measures submitted. The fact that "the procuring of the necessary signatures to a petition is, in effect, the introduction of a bill before a legislative body composed of the whole people," 1 is unfortunately often not realized by persons whose signatures to petitions are solicited. There is much evidence for the proposition that "anybody will sign any kind of a petition." Persons approached with petitions very seldom have time to read the measure, sometimes of great length, and the circulators are anxious to have the business over as soon as possible. Any information as to the nature of the measure thus usually comes, if it comes at all, from the interested circulator. Often with little or no knowledge whatever about the measure, persons sign names to accommodate the circulator or to get rid of his importunity. Often, again, they sign "to give the people a chance" to decide upon the measure.

1 J. Bourne, Oregon Journal, Jan. 25, 1914, sec. 2, p. 3, col. 1.

2 Testimony in court regarding the circulation of petitions:

"It

"Levi J. Robinson . . . said he did not know he had signed the referendum, and did not intend to do so. However, he identified his signature as genuine. He said the petition had been presented to him by Matthews, whom he knew, and he was told it was for a municipal paving plant. He was busy, and did not read it." Oregon Journal, Oct. 6, 1911, p. 19, col. 1.

3 Testimony in court regarding the circulation of petitions:

"O. C. Potts was an example of the doubtful witness. He said he had signed some petitions, he could not be sure what ones. After examining his name on the petition for some time, he said he did not believe he had written it . . . Dayton Trussell... said he did not remember signing, but would have done so if the petition had been presented. He did not believe his name on the petition to be genuine." Ibid., Oct. 6, 1911, p. 19, col. 1. "Lots of men said they would sign the petition just so Harbeck could get the five cents, but nearly all said they would not vote for the excise board." Circulator, quoted in Oregonian, Apr. 26, 1909, p. 13, col. 1.

is asked [by the promoters of the "harmony" road bills] that signers of petitions remember one thing especially, namely, that by signing the petitions they do not cast a vote in favor of the bills, but merely thus indicate that they are willing for the bills to go to the people for acceptance or rejection." Thus the number of petitioners is seen to have little proper significance.2

But recently there has been some healthy reaction against all this indiscriminate signing of petitions, and it has become somewhat more difficult than formerly to secure signatures to petitions. The proper purpose of the petition as an indication of public opinion is now better appreciated. "In refusing to sign the petitions that are presented to them, the people are choosing the most effective method of discouraging those who are responsible for over-loading the ballot. . . . In the past too little stress has been placed on the fact that the voter is called upon to exercise just as exact and careful judgment when he signs a petition as when he votes on the measure at the general election. Signing a petition is in effect a vote in favor of the measure for which it is being circulated, and a refusal to sign the petition is an effective vote against the proposed law. People can vote against a proposed measure just as effectively by refusing to sign the petition as by voting 'No' at the election, and in addition can save expense and cumbrance of the ballot. It is generally admitted that the initiative and referendum are being abused. The most effective means of checking the abuse

1 Oregon Journal, June 28, 1912, p. 23, col. 6.

"It is not necessary, legally or otherwise, that I favor or even understand the merits of the measure that I ask to be submitted. Frankly I confess that I do not know everything and for that reason I am anxious to learn. . . . Is not the day of election and not the filling of the petition the trial of the merit of the measure and the legitimate test of the law to be enacted or rejected?" C. W. Barzee, Oregonian, Jan. 3, 1914, p. 6, col. 5.

2 Similar difficulties have occurred in case of the direct primary law. "As the system has developed it has proven to be extremely farcical. It has provided temporary jobs for men who have circulated the petitions and has given them a pretty graft. It has simply degenerated into a system whereby a man buys his way to secure a place on the ballot." W. S. U'Ren, quoted in Oregonian, May 7, 1912, p. 6, col. 3.

is by giving just as careful consideration to petitions as to the measures on the ballot." 1 "The voter who refuses to sign a referendum petition often does more benefit for the state than when he casts his vote." 2

Possibly a provision requiring that petitioners in affixing their signatures should at the same time pledge themselves to vote for the measure at the election might aid in increasing the sense of responsibility for signature.3

2

The Geographical Distribution of Signatures

Under the provisions of the law now obtaining there are no restrictions upon the proportion of signatures which may be secured in any one locality. Since it is easier to solicit signatures where the population is densest, most signatures are secured in Portland and Multnomah county and the country immediately surrounding, containing over a third of the population of the state. Petitions are thus not geographically representative, although the whole state bears the ballot's burden for which one section of the state is largely responsible. Not only for this reason, but also, and especially because securing signatures in the more densely populated districts is considered too easy, and the temptations to fraudulent practice are greater there than elsewhere, the requirement of some distribution of

1 Eugene Register, June 7, 1912, p. 4, col. 1.

2 Oregonian, Apr. 22, 1913, p. 8, col. 4. See also Oregon Journal, June 6, 1912, p. 8, col. 1. For the election of 1914 the circulation of forty-three bills was undertaken, but only twenty-nine of them were finally submitted to a vote.

"There shall also plainly appear on all initiative and referendum petitions . . these words, 'I hereby declare that before signing this petition, I have carefully read all of the above described . . . or the whole thereof has been read to me in an intelligible manner, that I believe I fairly understand the same, and my attention was called to this declaration by the person presenting this petition to me before I signed it."" And the circulators are penalized for failure to call such attention. House Bill, 1911, no. 9, sec. 6. See Oregon Journal, Dec. 7, 1910, p. 5, col. 1; Jan. 18, 1911, p. 6, col. 5.