California’s influential labor unions, government watchdogs and environmental advocates have repeatedly accused companies of lying to voters in campaigns to overturn state laws and thwart the progressive Democratic agenda in the Capitol.

Now they plan to do something about it.

Assemblyman Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) is submitting a proposal this week to reform the state election law by making it more difficult for campaigns to deceive voters in circulating petitions to qualify for a statewide referendum

.

The bill marks the latest confrontation in a proxy war between workers and businesses in the U.S. Capitol and could become one of California’s most high-profile political battles this year.

“It’s a very old process, and over time its original intent and usefulness has been undermined by a small, disaffected, well-funded, well-driven group of interests that often undermine the collective will of the people of California,” Bryan said. .

Assembly Bill 421 would establish new government oversight of signature collection, require more transparency about the groups funding referendum campaigns, and mandate that at least 10% of petition signatures must be obtained by unpaid volunteers. The sweeping legislation would apply the new rules to referenda and extend to initiative campaigns that aim to repeal or amend a state statute within two years of the law taking effect.

The Service Employees International Union of California and other proponents of the bill say there is a need to realign California’s referendum system to its original 1911 goal:

T

o provide a mechanism for voters through direct democracy to counter corporate influence on state government.

Businesses are going to vote to fight California’s progressive agenda and sound the alarm

Today, unions and progressive advocacy groups have more influence over legislators than they did a century ago, and corporations often struggle to protect their interests at the Capitol.

Proponents of the legislation say that over time the referendum system has become less of a tool for Californians to control their legislatures and instead an opportunity for wealthy corporations to enforce state laws that a vast majority of Democrats support. adopted to tackle poverty and protect, block and reverse the public. health and good for the environment.

In recent years, companies that make cigarettes, produce plastics, and operate surety firms have launched multimillion-dollar campaigns to collect petition signatures to qualify voter referendums that rise to the challenge

i.e

laws that harm their business model.

The California Chamber of Commerce has pushed back on the need for referendum reform, arguing that companies rarely launch campaigns against laws. The chamber has compared the six referenda that have been eligible for a vote in the past decade

Unpleasant

with the thousands of laws enacted by the California Legislature and Governor during that same period.

However, the strategy has already suspended two major progressive bills this year until the vote in November 2024.

In January, the

S

secretary of

S

tate announced that fast food companies had collected enough signatures to force a referendum on a

state of California

law intended to raise wages for restaurant workers. Last month, oil companies

qualified for the vote their

attempt to overturn an environmental safety law that would ban new drilling projects near homes and schools

qualified for the vote

.

The oil contingency legislation was passed in 2022 after years of grassroots organizing and several failed attempts in the legislature. Almost immediately

,

the industry began misleading voters about the law and pitting them against policies that would protect the health of underprivileged communities, said Melissa Romero of California Environmental Voters.

“This is a really disgusting abuse of power, and it’s an example of one of the ways companies are currently pretending they’re above the law simply because they have enough money to do what they want,” Romero said. “And the voters are sick of it.”

To ask voters to overturn a law on the next statewide vote, referendum advocates must get signatures from 5% of voters in the last gubernatorial election. Political campaigns often hire companies to distribute petitions and pay people per signature collected. Many signature collectors come from other states.

‘I feel cheated’: Inside the fast food industry trying to dismantle a new California labor law

A key provision of AB 421 would require unpaid volunteers to collect at least 10% of the signatures needed to qualify a referendum on the ballot.

“A fundamental part of participatory democracy is to have people who actually care, as opposed to people who are paid to collect signatures at the expense of actually articulating what the measure is,” Bryan said.

The bill also requires paid signature collectors to register with the California Secretary of State and disclose the ballot petitions they intend to present to voters,

proponents said.

Each signature collector would receive a unique identification number that would be listed on their individual petitions. The bill would require them to wear a badge with their number, name and photo, making it easier for voters to identify those who

That

misrepresent petitions.

The Secretary of State would also administer a mandatory training program for paid signature collectors, including education on prohibited activities.

“Discontent with paid signature collectors is as old as direct democracy itself,” he said

Thad Cousser

professor of political science

UC San Diego

.

Kousser said states have tried to ban and regulate paid signature collectors since 1913, but the courts have protected the process. He referred to one

N

U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1988 that found the distribution of petitions to be the primary political expression

,

and called paid signature collection the most effective, fundamental, and arguably economical way to achieve direct, one-to-one communication with voters.”

Many states have added their own rules to the process, such as California, allowing people to ask if a signature collector is paid. He said he hadn’t seen it

each

States are trying to require volunteers to collect some of the signatures.

Another common complaint is that autograph collectors misrepresent the group’s funding campaigns. To address those concerns, the legislation would require the petition to list the top three contributors to the campaign on the first page

together with the arc de

title of the Attorney General and summary of the measure. Signatories would be required

dates and

first a statement stating that they have assessed the best financiers.

Proponents anticipate opposition from oil companies and others

paid vigorously

business interests in the capital. While the legislation would change the referendum process, they say the proposal doesn’t need to go to voters because it doesn’t change the state

C

institution.

“We’re going to face quite a lot of opposition, but I’m hopeful that the legislature will agree with us that it’s time to take back our democracy,” said Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California.