SUPREME COURT HEARS PETITION CASE

Scalia, other justices grill attorney general on state law regulating
signature-gatherers

WASHINGTON -- Several Supreme Court justices on Wednesday peppered
Colorado's attorney general with tough questions about a state law
regulating petition-gatherers.

Gale Norton went before the nation's high court to argue for the 1994 law
that requires people circulating ballot petitions to be registered Colorado
voters and to wear badges disclosing whether they are being paid.

The legislature passed the measure two years after a record 10 citizen
initiatives crowded one ballot.

The law was struck down by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch and later by
the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Colorado then appealed to the
Supreme Court, which is expected to issue its decision in July.

The court review is being closely watched around the nation because half the
states allow ballot initiatives, and voters increasingly are using them to
bypass legislatures and make law.

Denver attorney Neil O'Toole, representing the American Constitutional Law
Foundation, a public interest group that sued the state seeking to overturn
the statute, asked the Supreme Court to declare Colorado's regulations an
infringement on First Amendment free speech guarantees.

Eight of the nine justices engaged in a spirited question-and-answer session
with Norton and O'Toole during the first presentation of the day. All but
Justice Clarence Thomas, who did not speak during the presentation, took an
active role in the give-and-take.

Justice Antonin Scalia took pointed issue with the requirement that
petition-gatherers be registered voters.

"Why is it easier to prevent fraud with a registered voter?" he asked
Norton. "Are Coloradans more honest than non-Coloradans?"

"We are seeing bands of people who go from state-to-state (gathering)
petitions," Norton said.

Describing the case as one of the most important First Amendment issues of
the decade, Norton said afterward that the court's decision will affect how
citizen initiatives, an increasingly popular form of grass-roots government,
are regulated in 23 states.

Some of the justices questioned the need to impose such restrictions on
petition gatherers.

"Are you this careful registering voters?" Scalia asked Norton, who was
forced to concede there are different standards.

"We are not able to be as careful in voter registration," Norton said.

O'Toole told the justices that it is essential to uphold the rulings of the
lower courts to "assure the ability (of individuals) to gather together to
change government."

"We believe the process employed by the state is intended to do one thing --
hinder the process," O'Toole said.

In a brief rebuttal, Norton said the law is designed "to prevent fraud and
misconduct" from the growing army of paid petition circulators -- a
multimillion-dollar business paying as much as $30 or $40 an hour to
employees.

"We have established limited structures of regulations to safeguard the
people's rights" to fair elections, she said.

The Supreme Court a decade ago rejected a bid by Colorado to strictly
regulate petition-gatherers. In 1988, the high court struck down a law that
prohibited all paid petition-gatherers, citing the First Amendment.

Norton acknowledged that only three people have been prosecuted in recent
years for violating the law.

Scalia, the most inquisitive of the justices, asked whether circulators
amounted to nothing more than "one citizen trying to persuade another
citizen."

Norton argued that a free-speech protection doesn't apply because the
circulators assume a quasi-legislative role that "is akin to an election
judge."

Colorado's appeal is supported in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted by
the Council of State Governments and 13 other states -- Alaska, Arizona,
California, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon,
South Dakota and Washington.

Checked-by: Don Beck