The Ballot Initiative and the Signature Threshold
A state requires 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election (about 250,000 signatures) to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. A coalition gathers 300,000 signatures but submits them 30 days before the deadline, and the secretary of state's verification process takes 45 days. The state constitution requires verification before the ballot is certified, which occurs 60 days before the election. The coalition sues to compel certification, arguing the deadline is impossible to meet. The state argues the requirement is a neutral election rule. The coalition also alleges that paid circulators were used and that the state's ban on paying per-signature is unconstitutional under Meyer v. Grant.
1. Analyze the coalition's claim that the verification timeline burdens the right to direct democracy. What constitutional standard applies, and how should the court rule?
Read the worked answer
The claim implicates the First and Fourteenth Amendments' protection of political speech and association, including the right to circulate petitions (Meyer v. Grant; Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation). The standard is not strict scrutiny for every election rule: Burdick v. Takushi and Anderson v. Celebrezze require a balancing of the burden on voters' rights against the state's regulatory interests. A severe burden triggers strict scrutiny; reasonable, nondiscriminatory rules are upheld.
Here the burden is not the signature threshold itself-300,000 exceeds the 250,000 requirement-but the interaction of the submission deadline and the verification period. If the secretary of state cannot verify in time, the rule effectively prevents the amendment from reaching the ballot, which is a severe burden on the coalition's and voters' rights. The state's interest in verifying signatures and preventing fraud is legitimate, but the state created the timing problem by setting a 30-day submission window with a 45-day verification process. The court should likely find the timeline unconstitutional as applied and order certification or an expedited verification, because the state could have designed a process that allows verification to occur. The rule is neutral on its face but not neutral in effect.
2. How should the court treat the per-signature payment ban under *Meyer v. Grant* and *Buckley*?
Read the worked answer
Meyer v. Grant struck down a ban on paying circulators because it limited political expression and the pool of people who could circulate petitions. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation went further, invalidating a requirement that circulators be registered voters and a requirement that they wear name badges, while upholding disclosure and reporting requirements. The Court has distinguished paying circulators (protected) from paying per signature (more regulable), because per-signature payments create an incentive to fraud.
The per-signature ban is likely constitutional if it is narrowly tailored to prevent fraud and is not a pretext for suppressing speech. The Court in Buckley suggested that per-signature payment is a closer question than flat payment, and many states ban it. The coalition's challenge should fail if the state can show the ban targets fraud and does not significantly reduce the number of circulators. The distinction: banning all payment severely burdens speech; banning per-signature payment with a flat-fee alternative leaves circulators able to be paid and targets the specific abuse. The court should uphold the ban but scrutinize any enforcement that penalizes the coalition for the circulators' conduct.