HIGH COURT CONSIDERS INITIATIVE RESTRICTIONS

Colorado Set Rules For Participation

Hearing arguments in a case involving ballot initiatives popular throughout
the country, Supreme Court justices yesterday questioned whether a Colorado
law goes too far in putting restrictions on people who try to launch voter
initiatives to change state laws.

The case tests whether Colorado may require people seeking signatures for an
initiative to be registered voters and to wear badges identifying themselves
as paid or volunteer. The state also forces those backing a particular
initiative to file reports disclosing the names of those circulating the
petitions and how much they're paid. A federal appeals court struck down the
regulations as violating free-speech rights.

Colorado officials, supported by officials in 13 other states, say the
regulations prevent fraud in an initiative process dominated by money and
professionals who go from state to state collecting signatures. Indeed, the
flourishing voter initiatives nationwide -- on subjects as varied as
affirmative action, bilingual education, gambling and gay rights -- have
spawned a multimillion-dollar industry in which the battles can be as
expensive as any individual candidate's campaign.

A decision in the case could determine just how far states can go in setting
parameters on that process.

The people who circulate petitions, Colorado Attorney General Gale A. Norton
told the justices, are "essential" to the lawmaking process because
successful initiatives are ultimately written into statutes or even the
state constitution. Given their power, she said, the circulators of those
petitions have an obligation to all of the people in Colorado, not just
those who support the viewpoints they advance.

Norton also said Colorado wants more information about those who collect the
signatures so that if questions arise about potentially fraudulent names on
a petition, regulators can track down those who gathered them.

But those challenging the three Colorado regulations claim they limit the
number of people who could qualify to collect signatures, and, as a
consequence, limit the ability of a campaign to generate enough signatures
to get on a ballot.

Denver lawyer Neil D. O'Toole challenged the state's assertion that fraud is
rampant. "We don't see it," he told the justices, urging them to affirm the
ruling by the 10th U.S. Court of Appeals.

When the lower court struck down the regulations, it said that requiring ID
badges, for example, discourages "truthful, accurate speech by those
unwilling to wear a badge" and disregards "an individual's interest in
anonymity." It said the disclosure requirement also "chills" circulation of
petitions.

Hearing the state's appeal, several justices seemed unmoved by Colorado's
arguments. Justice Antonin Scalia observed that people who collect
signatures necessarily try to persuade someone to join a cause, an activity
at the heart of political speech rights.

He scoffed at the notion that outsiders descended on the state to collect
signatures: "How many of these election gypsies are there?"

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor sharply questioned the state's interest in
demanding that a circulator be a registered voter, not merely a state
resident.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also
voiced skepticism about the state's need for the regulations.

Ballot initiatives have become an increasingly popular tool for changing the
law. And in 1992, a record number of initiatives -- 10 -- were placed on the
ballot in Colorado, which precipitated the controversial state regulations.

One touchstone for the case is a 1988 ruling by the high court in an earlier
Colorado dispute. The state had barred any person soliciting signatures from
being paid for his or her work. But the justices struck down the
prohibition, saying that petition drives concern core political speech and
that any infringements on the process should be subject to the strictest
judicial scrutiny.

In the current case, Colorado officials say the regulations should be
assessed under a more flexible judicial standard than the one the court used
in the 1988 Meyer v. Grant ruling. A decision in the case of Buckley v.
American Constitutional Law Foundation is likely to be handed down in early
1999.

Checked-by: Don Beck