HIGH COURT REJECTS STATE'S PETITION LAW

Effort to prevent fraud limits speech, justices say, but Norton calls
it 'ivory tower' view

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Colorado's attempt
to strictly regulate ballot measures and the people who pass petitions.

The 6-3 decision said the state's regulatory effort was "excessively
restrictive of political speech."

State officials said the ruling opens the door to election fraud. But
opponents of the petition regulations said that is an exaggeration and
that the ruling is a blow for the First Amendment.

The decision will affect ballot initiatives in Colorado, 22 other
states and the District of Columbia.

"This decision has significant, far-reaching potential," said Neil
O'Toole, who fought the state's regulations while representing a
public-interest group called the American Constitutional Law Foundation.

"This is the core of what this country is all about -- free
speech."

Outgoing Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton, who argued the case
for the state, described it as one of the most important First
Amendment issues of the decade.

She suggested that the far-reaching effects may all be negative --
including fraud and misrepresentations among the growing legion of
paid signature gatherers.

"We argued that states should be able to engage in reasonable
regulation to prevent petition fraud just like any other election
fraud," Norton said.

She said she recognized that the state was at a disadvantage because
the rules had been overturned by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch,
and the state lost at the appeals level, too.

"The court has tended to view the petitioning process from an ivory
tower perspective," she said. "They view it as pure free speech -- and
they are not exposed to the day-to-day commercialization of the
election process."

Secretary of State Vikki Buckley said she was especially disappointed
that circulators who are not registered voters can now gather signatures.

"You have people coming into Colorado and changing statutes and the
constitution who don't have a vested interest in the issues," she
said. "Requiring them to be registered voters in the state maintains
the integrity of the process. But we'll move on, and hope for the best."

But O'Toole said there's no evidence that paid, unregistered petition
circulators are more prone to fraud than unpaid, registered ones.

The legislature imposed the restrictions after the 1992 election in
which a record 10 initiatives were on the ballot.

The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require petition
circulators to be registered to vote, force them to wear badges that
identify them by name and disclose whether they are paid or
volunteers, or mandate monthly reports on petition
circulators.

"I'm delighted," said Douglas Bruce, author of the Taxpayers Bill of
Rights, a tax-limit initiative passed in 1992. "Once again, the U.S.
Supreme Court has verified and exposed Colorado as the most
anti-petition state government in the country."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said the court
must "guard against undue hindrances to political conversations and
the exchange of ideas."

In the 1998 election, Coloradans voted on 11 measures, including nine
initiatives placed on the ballot by petition.

The decision marked the second time in a little over a decade that
restrictive ballot-initiative measures in Colorado have been struck down as
unconstitutional by the nation's highest court. In 1988, the state's
attempt to prohibit petition circulators paid by commercial interests was
struck down as a violation of "core political speech."

Ruling not expected to boost initiatives

Coloradans shouldn't expect a torrent of new ballot initiatives in the wake
of Tuesday's Supreme Court decision to outlaw restrictive state laws on
petition-gathering.

For one, the process of getting a measure on the ballot remains
difficult enough. Second, it costs a small fortune -- $100,000 to
$200,000 -- to collect the necessary signatures to place an initiative
on the ballot.

"There is not going to be a floodgate of petitions," said Douglas
Bruce, the father of the state's initiative process and the author of
the ground-breaking Taxpayers' Bill of Rights in 1992. "The petition
process is extremely difficult."

Based on voting counts in the November election, petition sponsors now
need about 63,000 signatures to place a measure on the ballot. On
average, about 30 percent of petition signatures are ruled illegal,
meaning that most sponsors must gather about 90,000 signatures in all
to succeed.

Outgoing Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton said initiative groups
are becoming more reliant on paid petition gatherers. That is fraught
with potential abuses, she said.

Colorado Secretary of State Vikki Buckley said, "From what I see, more
and more of these 'initiative corporations' are going to come into
play. It's becoming a very big business. We're going to see more and
more of them."

Neil O'Toole, who argued against the restrictive laws for the American
Constitutional Law Foundation, said even if the ruling results in more
ballot initiatives, that isn't necessarily bad.

"The basis for this country is the involvement of people in the
political process," he said. "We're living in a democracy. Nobody ever
said it doesn't come with a price."

National Voter Outreach, a Nevada-based company that collects petition
signatures around the country, helped place three citizen initiatives
before Colorado voters two months ago. Chief operating officer Rick
Arnold said it costs about $80,000 to $100,000 in Colorado to gather
the necessary signatures. They charge from 50 cents to a dollar per
signature.