David 0. Stewart D.C.

Bar # 336339 (appearing pro hac vice under Nevada Supreme Court Rule 42, motion pending) Ropes & Gray LLP One Metro Center 700 12th Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-3948 (202) 508-4610 Allen Lichtenstein NV Bar #3992 3315 East Russell Road #222 Las Vegas, NV 89120-3459 (702)433 2666 Counsel for Amicus Project Vote
BY

FILED
JUL 0 8 2011
TRACIE K. LINDEMAN U4'1 SUMBA R IIEPU

t-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA AMY ADELE BUSEFINK Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA Respondent.
)

S.C. Case No. 57579

BRIEF OF PROJECT VOTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AMY ADELE BUSEFINK AND REVERSAL OF HER CONVICTION BEFORE THE EIGHT JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

11 - ZoL40-1
Docket 57579 Document 2011-19127

TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of Identity and Interest Facts Argument 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A. N.R.S. 293.805 does not apply to productivity bonuses paid to hourly workers. B. N.R.S. 293.805 does not apply to registration canvassing 1 1 2 4 6 10 12 15

C. As applied to Ms. Busefink, N.R.S. 239.805 is unconstitutionally vague and impermissibly chills political speech about voter registration D. The trial court's application of N.R.S. 293.805 impermissibly stifles political speech based on content Conclusion

1 2 3 4 CASES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) 4 11, 12, 13 11 8 4 14 5 12,13 4, 9 12 11 4 4 13

Chanos v. State, 181 P.3d 675 (Nev. 2008) Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm 'n, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State v. Catanio, 102 P.3d 588 (2004) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 United States v. McGoff, 831 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1987) United States v. Playboy Entm't Grp., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) STATUTES 42 U.S.C. 1973gg (2011) 42 U.S.C. 15483 (2008) N.R.S. 293.055 (2008) N.R.S. 293.090 (2008) N.R.S. 293.457 (1960) (repealed 1993) N.R.S. 293.505 (2008) Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009) Independence Inst. v. Buescher, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (D. Colo. 2010) Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) Moore v. State, 126 P.3d 508 (Nev. 2006) Nev. Comm 'n on Ethics v. Carrigan, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4379 (U.S. June 13, 2011) Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010)

10 8, 9, 10 7 7 5 10, 14

N.R.S. 293.517 (2008) N.R.S. 293.524 (2008) N.R.S. 293.524 (2008) N.R.S. 293.800 (2008) N.R.S. 293.805 (2008) N.R.S. 293.5235 (2008) REGULATIONS 7 11 C.F.R. 100.24 (2011) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Todd Donovan & Daniel A. Smith, Identifying and Preventing Signature Fraud on Ballot Measure Petitions, in Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation (2008) N.A.C. 293.420 (2008) N.A.C. 293.440 (2008) DICTIONARIES Am. Heritage College Dictionary (3d ed. 1997) Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2005) Register Definition, Dictionary.com , http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/register Register Definition, Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/register Webster 's New Int 'l Dictionary (3d ed. 2002) OTHER AUTHORITIES

7 9 7, 9 10, 14 passim 7, 8, 9, 10

8 9 9

5, 6 6 6 6 6

14

Statement of Identity and Interest

Project Vote is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded in 1994 to promote political participation in under-represented communities. Using volunteers and paid canvassers, Project Vote communicates with members of low- and moderate-income and minority communities to persuade them to participate in the democratic process by exercising the right to vote. To spread its message, Project Vote runs registration drives in advance of electoral campaigns. Project Vote canvassers urge citizens to register to vote, hand out registration applications, help citizens to complete applications, and collect and mail applications to the state officials responsible for registering voters. By leave of this Court, Project Vote files this brief in support of Amy Adele Busefink's appeal and request to vacate her conviction. Nevada Revised Statute ("N.R.S.") 293.805 (2008) should not be read to prohibit adjusting the hourly pay of registration canvassers to reflect their productivity. If the statute were read to bar such adjustments, as the trial court did in this case, the statute would violate (i) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by not providing fair notice of what it prohibits and (ii) the First Amendment by restricting political speech based on its content without being narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest. Facts Project Vote provided advice and management services to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inc. ("ACORN") for its voter registration drive in Nevada in 2008. Project Vote Decl. 14, attached hereto as Exhibit A. ACORN employed registration canvassers in Nevada on an hourly basis. Prelim. Hr'g Tr., Sept. 1

1 2

29, 2009, J. App. 64. For four hours of a six-hour shift, canvassers helped citizens to complete applications to register to vote. Id. at 83. ACORN wanted canvassers to collect twenty applications each day. Id. at 56, 84 ("[The] job was to get 20 cards."). If

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

canvassers collected "21 or more cards," they received "an extra $5.00 for that day." Id. at 120; see also id. at 114 ("per shift"); Crim. Compl., J. App. 2-17. The twenty "card" goal was an incentive, not a quota. Prelim. Hr'g Tr., J. App. 84. Canvassers who collected "substantially" fewer than twenty cards in a shift were not automatically terminated. Id. at 63. Canvassers who collected twenty-one or more applications in a shift received a single $5.00 payment. Id. at 95. In Project Vote's experience, to speak effectively with potential voters, a canvassing group needs to pay canvassers and to require them to canvass for their pay. Project Vote Dec1. 11 22-27. This necessarily entails rewarding effective canvassers and terminating ineffective canvassers. Id. 1125. Without the ability to spend money on speech efficiently, the amount and effectiveness of Project Vote's speech with citizens about voting will be reduced. Equally, Project Vote's ability to convince nonvoters to become voters depends on its ability to reward effective canvassers and discharge those who do not perform adequately. Id. 27. Argument N.R.S. 293.805(1)(a) bars "compensation for registering voters that is based upon[] [t]he total number of voters a person registers"; by its own terms, that prohibition does not apply to hourly and daily compensation of canvassers who collect registration applications from citizens and deliver them to a county clerk for processing. First, the 2

1 2 3 4 5 6

statute does not apply to the compensation structure at issue in this case, which was based on the rate at which canvassers worked, not on the total number of registrations collected. Second, the statute does not apply to canvassers who help a person with a registration application that must be approved by a state official before the applicant becomes a "voter." Rather, the statute applies to persons who "register" voters, which is an action that can be performed only by a public official charged with responsibility under state and federal election laws. As enforced against Ms. Busefink, N.R.S. 293.805 violates

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

due process by not giving fair warning that it bars adjusting the hourly pay of canvassers who meet a productivity goal. Nor does it give fair notice that it applies to canvassers who lack authority to accept and process registration applications. Moreover, the enforcement of N.R.S. 293.805 in this case prevents Project Vote and others from requiring canvassers to be productive or rewarding them for being productive. That violates the First Amendment by reducing the quantity of political speech with nonvoters about exercising the right to vote. As applied by the trial court, N.R.S. 293.805 thus is a content-based restriction on speech that directly limits the effectiveness of political groups that hope to convince nonvoters to become registered voters. To survive First Amendment review, N.R.S. 293.805 must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest. But Nevada has no such compelling interest here because other state laws prohibit registration fraud. In addition, experience has demonstrated that restrictions on how canvassers are paid do not necessarily reduce fraud. Because N.R.S. 293.805 is not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest, it violates the First Amendment. 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

To avoid these constitutional problems, this Court should conclude that N.R.S. 293.805 does not apply to Ms. Busefink's conduct.

A.

N.R.S. 293.805 does not apply to productivity bonuses paid to hourly workers.
To apply N.R.S. 293.805, the Court should start with its plain language on the

assumption that the "ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose." Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2350 (2009) (quoting Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 252 (2004)). If, as here, the statutory language is clear, the Court should enforce its terms. Chanos v. State, 181 P.3d 675, 680 (Nev. 2008) (citing State, Div. of Ins. v. State Farm, 995 P.2d 482, 485 (2000)). If the Court finds that "reasonably informed persons" could understand the law in multiple senses, the Court should use legislative history, reason, and public policy to resolve the ambiguity. Id. at 680-81 (citations omitted); see also Moore V. State, 126 P.3d 508, 511 (Nev. 2006) (quoting State v. Catanio, 102 P.3d 588, 590 (2004)); United States v. McGoff, 831 F.2d 1071, 1076-77 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("[C]larity [for a] criminal law can prove to be more difficult to achieve in prescribing mala prohibita than . . . the traditional mala in se."). The Court should also be guided by the rule that ambiguous penal laws are "strictly construed and resolved in favor of the defendant." Catanio, 102 P.3d at 590 (quoting Firestone v. State, 83 P.3d 279, 281 (2004)). The Court must not "supplement" a penal law to help the state. Moore, 126 P.3d at 512. Nevada's voter registration law does not define "compensation. . . based upon [a] total number." N.R.S. 293.805(1)(a) (2008). When one factor is "based upon" another, 4

1 2 3 4

that ordinarily means that the second factor is "the lowest or bottom part," "a foundation," a "fundamental ingredient" or "chief constituent" of the first. Am. Heritage College Dictionary 113 (3d ed. 1997). The law at issue here thus bars having the "total number" of registered voters be the "chief constituent" of the compensation of persons who register voters. A "total" is an "amount obtained by addition; a sum." Id. at 1429.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

To give effect to the word "total," the Court should conclude that N.R.S. 293.805 forbids additional payments based on the total number of persons registered. For example, there should be no graduated pay scale so that a person registering five voters earns more than a person registering four and less than a person registering six. 1 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 12 (2004) (citing Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001) (courts "must give effect to every word of a statute wherever possible."). But ACORN paid canvassers on an hourly basis, not based on the total number of voters registered. ACORN also gave canvassers a productivity goal to encourage them to canvass effectively. The canvassers' job was "based upon" convincing nonvoters to apply to register to vote and collecting applications at an acceptable rate. But their wages were not "based upon" how many registration applications they collected from nonvoters. 1 The circumstances surrounding the enactment of N.R.S. 293.805 reinforce Project Vote's interpretation of N.R.S. 293.805 as a law intended to eliminate per-registration fees to state employees responsible for registering voters.. First, N.R.S. 293.805 repealed a provision that "precinct or district deputy registrar[s]" be paid "for all services the sum of not more than 10 cents for each voter registered." N.R.S. 293.457 (1960) (repealed 1993) (emphasis added), J. App 191. Second, before enacting N.R.S. 293.805, the Nevada Senate heard testimony about "deputy field registrars. . . [who] discovered that the democratic party was paying a $2 bounty for every democrat registered, in addition to the 10 cents that is paid per statute for every person registered" and forged registration applications to get the bounty. Minutes of the S. Comm. on Gov't Affairs at 2-3 (Mar. 26, 1993), J. App. 193. 5

1 2

A canvasser who collected seventeen applications one day and eighteen the next earned the same hourly pay each day. A canvasser who collected twenty-one applications one day and twenty-two the next also earned the same pay both days: hourly pay for a six-

4 5 6

hour shift and a $5.00 daily productivity adjustment. In short, ACORN paid canvassers based upon the total hours they worked and paid them more for doing their jobs well.

B.

N.R.S. 293.805 does not apply to registration canvassing.

In addition, N.R.S. 293.805 does not cover voter registration canvassers. By using

the term "register" as a verb, the statute plainly applies to individuals who have the power 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Other dictionaries have similar definitions for "register." See, e.g., Webster's New Intl Dictionary 1912 (3d ed. 2002) ("record formally or exactly: make an accurate entry of in a formal record," "make or secure an official entry of in a register," "enroll formally as a voter"); Register Definition, Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, http://wwvv.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/register (last visited June 9, 2011) ("make or secure official entry of in a register"; "enroll formally especially as a voter or student"); Register Definition, Dictionary.com , http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/register (last visited June 9, 2011) ("enter or cause to be entered formally in a register" and "enroll (a student, voter, etc.) in a school or course of study, on the voting rolls, etc." and "apply for and obtain inclusion of one's name on the list of voters" (emphasis added)). 6
2

to register voters. The ordinary meaning of "register" when used as a verb in this fashion is to enter a name formally into an official record. See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary 1062 (8th ed. 2005) ("1. To enter in a public registry" and "2. To enroll formally"); Am. Heritage College Dictionary 1149 ("enter in an official register" or "enroll officially or formally, esp. in order to vote or attend classes"). 2 In this case, the canvassers collected applications and then submitted them to those public officials with the power and responsibility to register voters. Just as high school graduates do not enroll in a college

1 2 3 4 5

merely by applying, nonvoters are not entitled to vote as soon as they submit an application to be registered as a voter. Nevada law specifically recognizes this distinction. It defines a "registered voter" as "an elector who has completed the procedure prescribed by law for registration as a voter." N.R.S. 293.090 (2008) (emphasis added). In contrast, an "elector" is a person who is eligible to vote but is not necessarily registered to vote. See N.R.S. 293.055

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

(2008). Nevada provides several ways for electors to start the registration procedure.

See

N.R.S. 293.517(1) (2008) (application before a "county clerk, a field registrar or a voter registration agency"); N.R.S. 293.5235 (2008) (mail-in application); N.R.S. 293.524 (2008) (application at the Department of Motor Vehicles). In each case, the elector must complete an application, and a county clerk must determine if the application is complete before the elector becomes a voter. See N.R.S. 293.517(1)(a) (2008); N.R.S. 293.517(6)(7) (2008); N.R.S. 293.5235(4) (2008); N.R.S. 293.524(4) (2008). If an elector appears before a county clerk to apply to become a voter, the clerk determines if an application is complete. N.R.S.,293.517(1)(a), (5) (2008). But if an elector mails in an application or applies at the Department of Motor Vehicles or a voter registration agency, the applicant is not registered as a voter until a county clerk receives the application and verifies that it is complete, that the elector is eligible to register, and that the application received from a voter registration agency has no improper "additions, erasures, or interlineations." N.R.S. 293.517(6)-(7) (2008). Nevada law explicitly states that a "county clerk shall not register a person to vote. . . unless that person has provided all of the information required by the application." N.R.S. 293.5235(11) (2008). Federal law mandates this 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

procedure: "an application for voter registration. . . may not be accepted or processed by a State unless the application includes . . . the applicant's driver's license number; or. . . the last 4 digits of the applicant's social security number," and the "[t]he State shall determine whether the information provided by an individual is sufficient to meet [these] requirements . . . ." 42 U.S.C. 15483(a)(5)(A)(i), (iii) (2008); see also Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 192 (2008) (noting that under 42 U.S.C. 15483, States must "verify voter information contained in a voter registration application"). In sum, consistent with federal law, Nevada's procedure for mail-in voter registration procedure starts with an application, but is complete only if the State accepts the application and thus "registers" the voter. Canvassers used by groups like Project Vote are not employed by the State and thus cannot not accept and process applications for the State. Canvassers hand out registration applications, answer questions about them, help electors who need help to complete the application, and collect applications to mail to the State for registration. See N.R.S. 293.5235(13) (2008) (stating that persons "may be assisted in completing the application to register to vote by any other person"); cf. 11 C.F.R. 100.24(2)(i) (2011) (defining "voter registration activity" to include "[e]ncouraging or urging potential voters to register to vote"; "[a]nswering questions about how to complete or file a voter registration form, or assisting potential voters in completing or filing such forms"; and "[submitting or delivering a completed voter registration form"). But an elector who completes an application provided by a canvasser does not become a "registered voter" unless and until a county clerk accepts the application. See N.R.S. 293.5235(4), (7), (11) 8

(2008); cf. N.R.S. 293.524(4) (2008). Indeed, Nevada law requires that the application 2 state that an elector "will not be registered to vote" unless the application is delivered to the county clerk. N.R.S. 293.5235(10)(a) (2008). Even upon receipt of a mail-in 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
3

application by the State, the elector is not registered until the county clerk deems the application complete and registers the voter. N.R.S. 293.5235(11); cf. N.R.S. 293.524(2)-(4) (2008) (stating that "[t]he county clerk shall use the applications to register to vote . . . to register applicants to vote" and that "[u]pon receipt of an application, the county clerk or field registrar of voters shall determine that the application is complete"); 42 U.S.C. 15483(a)(5)(A)(iii). Consequently, a canvasser's registration activities do not constitute registering "voters" within meaning of state and federal law. An elector applying to register to vote is not registered when he or she hands an application to a canvasser. Only when a public official approves the application does registration occur. Filling out and mailing an application is an attempt to register, but application alone is not registering to vote within the meaning of Nevada law. 3 In Moore, this Court held that presentment of a stolen credit card for the purchase of goods was not fraudulent use of a credit card if the card was not processed and no goods were obtained. 126 P.3d

The State's voter registration regulations also differentiate application and registration. For example, an application must include "[i]nstructions to the applicant to contact the county clerk if the applicant does not, within 10 days after he submits the application to the county clerk, receive his voter registration card indicating that his registration has been accepted." Nev. Admin. Code ("N.A.C.") 293.420(1)(g) (2008). This regulation would make no sense if nonvoters were registered as voters as soon as they submit an application. See also N.A.C. 293.440(2) (2008) (referring to an "applicant who is attempting to register to vote; or [] [a]nother person who is assisting the applicant"). 9

1 2

at 511. Moore's logic applies here because N.R.S. 293.805 speaks of "registering voters" not registering applicants. For N.R.S. 293.805 to apply to an act, that act must result in an elector actually becoming eligible to vote, i.e., becoming a "registered voter." Nevada

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

election law recognizes this key difference by separately prohibiting fraudulent registration applications and fraudulent registrations. See N.R.S. 293.800(1), (4)-(5) (2008); N.R.S. 293.505(12) (2008); cf. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-10(2)(A) (2011) (prohibiting "procurement or submission of voter registration applications [] known. . . to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent"). 4 If applying and registering were the same, there would be no need for a ban on fraudulent applications. Because "registering" and "registers" in N.R.S. 293.805 refer to the official acceptance of a registration application that entitles a person to vote, the statute did not apply to Ms. Busefink's activities. C. As applied to Ms. Busefink, N.R.S. 239.805 is unconstitutionally vague and impermissibly chills political speech about voter registration. If N.R.S. 293.805 applies to the canvassers employed by ACORN to assist persons

15 with registration applications, it will be fundamentally unclear what counts as 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

4

N.R.S. 293.505(12) (enacted 1997) predates 42 U.S.C. 15483(5)(a)(i) (enacted 2002), which applies "notwithstanding any other provision of law" and effectively mandates that no one can be registered as a voter until the State accepts and processes an application. Although N.R.S. 293.505(12)(a) uses the verb "register" in relation to persons who assist electors pursuant to N.R.S. 293.5235(13), that does not mean that canvassing equates to "registering voters" under N.R.S. 293.805 because electors are not registered as voters until the State verifies and accepts their applications. See, e.g., N.R.S. 293.5235(10)(a) (requiring that application to register to vote must include a notice stating, "If you choose to give your completed application to another person to return to the County Clerk on your behalf, and person fails to deliver the application to the County Clerk, you will not be registered to vote." (emphasis added)). 10

1 2 3 4 5 6

compensation "based upon" the total number of "voters a person registers." It is unconstitutional to force people to "guess" at the meaning of a criminal law. Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926); see also Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2927-28 (2010) (A penal law must give fair notice of what it forbids and not encourage discriminatory enforcement (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983)); Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 889 (2010) ("[V]ague laws chill speech. . . ." (citing Connally, 269 U.S. at 391)). The statutory interpretation

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

approved by the trial court would force a group like Project Vote to guess, for example, whether paying canvassers at different hourly rates based on their productivity or whether increasing the hourly pay of canvassers who collect registration applications from nonEnglish-speakers (which can be more difficult work) is compensation based on a total number. Moreover, a group like Project Vote must guess whether simply handing out registration applications to nonvoters "registers" voters, or if driving electors to the county clerk's office to apply in person "registers" voters, or if answering questions about voting eligibility to allow electors to complete an application "registers" voters. Is it only helping electors fill out forms that "registers" them? Or does mailing their applications to the State for processing register them? In short, what assistance is not "registering" a voter? Facing such uncertainties about criminal liability, political groups will inevitably shy away from registration drives, and the State will have silenced their political messages.

11

1 2

D.

The trial court's application of N.R.S. 293.805 impermissibly stifles political speech based on content. Enforcing N.R.S. 293.805 as a prohibition on compensating registration

3 canvassers based on productivity would deny groups like Project Vote the ability to use 4 paid canvassers effectively and thus would reduce their political speech, limiting both the 5 number of issues they can discuss and the size of the audience they can reach In Meyer v. 6 Grant, the Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on paying petition circulators 7 because it severely restricted core political speech in precisely these ways. 486 U.S. 414, 8 424 (1988) ("The First Amendment protects [the] right not only to advocate [a] cause but 9 also to select. . . the most effective means for so doing."). 10 Meyer's logic applies equally to registration drives. Like the circulation of 11 petitions, registration drives involve "the expression of a desire for political change and a 12 discussion of the merits of the proposed change." Id at 421. Canvassers urge citizens to 13 become eligible to vote by discussing the issues at stake in upcoming elections. Such 14 "interactive communication concerning political change [] is appropriately described as 15 'core political speech.' Id. at 422; see also Nev. Comm 'n on Ethics v. Carrigan, 2011 16 U.S. LEXIS 4379, at *19 (U.S. June 13, 2011) (stating that "an inherently expressive act 17 remains so despite its having governmental effect"). Unlike petition circulation, which 18 can involve myriad political messages, registration drives convey a single, simple 19 message: citizens should vote. Laws restricting political speech in registration drives are 20 therefore based on the content of speech and must be narrowly tailored to further a 21 compelling state interest. See Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 898 ("The First Amendment 22 12

stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. . . ."); United States v. Playboy Entm't Grp., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000); cf. Meyer, 486 U.S. at 425 (the state's burden to justify restrictions on core political speech is "well-nigh insurmountable"). "Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content." Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 900. Groups like Project Vote pay canvassers to convince disadvantaged and the politically disengaged to participate in the political process. Effective speech by canvassers results in the completion of registration applications by nonvoters. As applied by the trial court, N.R.S. 293.805 thus blunts and muffles a specific political message that nonvoters should become voters and must be subject to strict scrutiny review. Id. at 914 (distinguishing disclosure requirements from laws that seek to limit political speech). The State's interest in orderly elections does not extend to suppressing the political message that nonvoters should vote. If the judgment in this case stands, N.R.S. 293.805 will effectively bar a requirement that canvassers collect even one registration application; equally, it will bar paying productive canvassers more than less productive canvassers by increasing their pay on a daily basis. With such restrictions, a canvassing group cannot effectively manage its workforce to achieve a particular amount of political speech in advance of an election and thus help potential voters be heard at the polls. Indeed, the State's position would mean that N.R.S. 293.805 forbids the termination of canvassers for not collecting any applications at all. The result would be to throttle canvassing groups by hamstringing their management of their own activities. A registration group cannot calibrate its spending to speak effectively because, to avoid violating N.R.S. 293.805, a 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

group cannot consider how many persons canvassers convince to file applications when setting canvassers' hourly or daily compensation. The trial court's application of N.R.S. 293.805 effectively tells registration groups that canvassers can be paid but not for canvassing. Meyer squarely forbids such a prohibition. The State has an interest in preventing election fraud, but N.R.S. 293.805 is not a proper instrument to that end. Nevada has effective laws that specifically bar fraudulent registration applications and registration of voters. See, e.g., N.R.S. 293.800(4)-(5) (2008); N.R.S. 293.505(12) (2008). Moreover, laws like N.R.S. 293.805 likely do not prevent fraud at all. In Independence Institute v. Buescher, the court heard testimony from Dr. Daniel Smith that it found to be "grounded on an examination of actual petitions and [was] the product of a neutral analysis." 718 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1265-66 (D. Colo. 2010). Based on his testimony that it is "very difficult to determine. . . whether or not certain types of signature gathering necessarily lead[] to higher levels of fraud than others" and that the "pay per signature model" does not "necessarily induce[] fraud," the court found that "pay-per-signature compensation is no more likely than pay-per-hour compensation to induce fraudulent signature gathering or to increase invalidity rates." Id. In a study of petitions in Washington State from 1990 to 2006, Daniel Smith and Todd Donovan found "no clear pattern" that "paying [canvassers] for signatures" leads to more invalid submissions to the state than using volunteers. Todd Donovan & Daniel A. Smith, Identifting and Preventing Signature Fraud on Ballot Measure Petitions, in Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation 137 (2008), attached hereto as Exhibit B. 14

For all of these reasons, the restrictions on political speech in N.R.S. 293.805, as enforced, are not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.

3 4 5 6 7

Conclusion The Court should find that N.R.S. 293.805 does not apply to ACORN' s activities in Nevada in 2008 or, alternatively, declare the law unconstitutional as applied and accordingly vacate Ms. Busefink's conviction. 5 Dated this 27 th of June 2011 Respectfully submitted by:

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

/s/ Allen Lichtenstein David 0. Stewart D.C. Bar # 336339 (appearing pro hac vice under Supreme Court Rule 42, motion pending) Ropes & Gray LLP One Metro Center 700 12th Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-3948 (202) 508-4610 Allen Lichtenstein NV Bar #3992 3315 East Russell Road #222 Las Vegas, NV 89120-3459 (702)433 2666 Counsel for Amicus Project Vote

'Project Vote's Amicus Brief was prepared by David 0. Stewart, Pro Bono Counsel for Project Vote (D.C. Bar # 336339), appearing pro hac vice under Nevada Supreme Court Rule 42 (motion pending), Ropes & Gray LLP, One Metro Center, 700 12th Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005-3948, with assistance from Kriss Basil (Mass. BBO # 673074), Ropes & Gray LLP, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600. 15

ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO NEV. R. APP. P. 28.2 I have reviewed the foregoing Brief of Project Vote as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant Amy Adele Busefink. To the best of my knowledge, the Brief is not frivolous or interposed for any improper purpose and complies with all applicable Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. Dated this 27 day of June, 2011. Submitted by: /s/ Allen Lichtenstein NV Counsel of Record for Project Vote NV Bar #3992 3315 East Russell Road #222 Las Vegas, NV 89120-3459 (702) 433-2666

16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

AMY ADELE BUSEFIN( Appellant,

S.C. Case No. 57579

STATE OF NEVADA Respondent.

EXHIBIT A: DECLARATION OF PROJECT VOTE Brian Mellor, declare the following: I am currently the Senior Counsel of Project Vote, Inc. I have been the Senior Counsel Since 2008. In 2007 and 2008 I was a member of a management team - overseeing Project Vote's national voter registration drive. Prior to that 1 was involved in developing and implementing Project Vote's voter registration drive procedures and managing those procedures implementation in 2005, 2006 an 2007. 1 was personally involved in many aspects of national voter registration drive..

Project Vote conducted in 2007-2008 and in the planning for the voter registration -- drives in 2011-2012. , Project Vote is a national nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(0(3) organization that works to help register to vote. educate, and encourage to vote low-income, minority, youth,- and other marginalized and under-represented voters.. tLS.Census .11tireau data shows that despite recent increases in voter participation,

Docket 57579 Document 2011-19127

a significant portion of the voting eligible population in low-income and minori communities arc not regular participants in the democratic process 'Project Vote's core mission is to increase levels of voter participation in historically under-represented low- and moderate-income and minority communities because Project Vote believes that the political process will better serve and respond to the needs of such communities only if members of these .communities participate in the political process by voting. Project Vote has taken a comprehensive approach toward spreading its message . about the importance of voting and of holding the government accountable to low- . and moderate-income and minority communities in Nevada and other states. Project Vote provides professional training, management, evaluation, and technical services to organizations conducting voter-engagement and voterparticipation activities. Project Vote also delivers its message about the

importance of voting and political empowerment directly to the communities it

serves. The initial hurdle that must be overcome before political participation can

increase in low- and moderate-income communities is the perception that votin

cannot make a difference and that becoming eligible to vote is difficult or .

burdensome.
- Since 1994; Project Vote has developed Voter - registration programs in dozens of

cities, counties, and states a.nd, by directly interacting with citizens, has persuaded more than 5.6 million Americans to complete registration applications. Project Vote helped Nevada citizens complete and submit voter registration

applications in 2008, working with another Nevada civic group.

)

Project Vote or.a subsidiary, Voting for America, would conduct paid voterregistration drives in Nevada in 2012, which it would expect to operate together with other Nevada-based civic groups. However, if the law stands as it is

carol* being enforced or remains ambiguous so that Project Vote cannot be

certain about what violates the statute, Project Vote and its subsidia.ty will not do s 10. . Prior to the 2008 election, Project Vote knew that there were thousands of minority and low-income residents in Clark County, Nevada who were eligible to vote if registered. In advance of the November election, Project Vote made it a priority to expand its voter-registration activities in an effort to persuade nonvoting citizens that by. becoming registered voters they could make a. . . difference in the outcome of the election. 1.1. Project Vote developed the model for the Nevada voter-registration drive, which was based on its many years of experience. 12. The MOM 'used paid part-time employees, known as canvassers, to locate unregistered but otherwise eligible citizens and assist them with the voter registration process. 13. First and foremost, registration canvassing involves persuading nonvoters that voting matters. To this end, canvassers are trained to tailor Project Vote's message to

address local issues over which candidates in the upcoming election, if

elected, have influence_ Canvassers also must convince nonvoters that applying to

register to vote is neither difficult nor burdensome. To help nonvoters apply to . register, canvassers hand out voter registration applications, explain the registration process, answer simple questions about eligibility, and for those citizens who have a physical disability impeding their ability to complete a form,. help with the completion of the application form. Canvassers then collect the application completed by the applicant and turn them over to the organization,

7 11 -

which reviews and documents them, and then submits them to state election

- officials.
.14L 10 '1 1 Project Vote provided advice and management services to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inc. ("ACORN") for its voter .registration drive in Nevada in 2008." Following Project Vote's model, in 2Q08 ACORN hired, over the course of the year, more than 600 registration canvassers , - 13 14 1.5 16 16, 18 . 15, to persuade Nevadans to complete voter registration applications. With this large number of ernployees, ACORN was able to collect and submit about 80,000 voter-registration applications to the Clark County Registrar of Voters between January and October 2008, Following Project Vote's model, ACORN utilized productivity goals to evaluate canvassers based on the number and quality of the registration applications

19
1

collected: For instance, based on Project Vote's model ACORN used a

productivity, or aspirational, .goal that canvassers strive to collect about 20 registration applications per shift. 17. As part of Project Vote's 2012 efforts to get the word out on the importance of.

21 ,

registering to vote and assisting applicants complete and submit applications, Project Vote is preparing the budget it will use to raise funds for the effort. As part, of the budget, Project Vote needs to estimate how many applications .a 4H canvasser can collect during a single shift and, based on that estimate, how many ' canvassers to hire and how much canvassers will cost partner organizations in order to have Project Vote's message reach enough citizens to increase voter participation by the desired amount in selected jurisdictions. - 18. 9 10 11 . 12 13 14 15 16 20. - 19. Project Vote is currently developing a manual to govern the conduct of voterregistration drives funded through Project Vote in 2012. The manual will include procedures that promote accuracy, efficiency, and . productivity in canvassers, hired to persuade eligible Nevada electors to complete voter registration applications. One crucial strategic decision facing Project Vote is how best to manage canvassers so as to maximize productivity without sacrificing quality, i.e., to obtain the largest possible number .of completed, accurate registration applications from eligible citizens. 21. Based on difficulties recruiting large numbers of volunteers, Project Vote certainly will employ paid canvassers.

17
18

19 .11 22. 20 21

Through years of experience, Project Vote has found that paid canvassers are
essential to an effective voter-registration drive, especially in locales like Nevada . where working conditions are often difficult.
Project Vote has found that it is difficult to recruit volunteers to do canvassing

Work in summer heat and in communities in which canvassers must .work. hard to persuade nonvoters to complete voter registration applications, conditions similar to those in Nevada. Project Vote's experience has been that, even when it can recruit a sufficient number of volunteers to staff a particular drive, volunteers speak to fewer citizens, and, as a result, collect significantly fewer registration
6 it applications than do paid canvassers.

In Nevada in 2012, Project Vote or its Subsidiary intends to use the same process they have used tbr the past several election cycles, namely, paying canvassers an hourly rate to interact with prospective unregistered Nevadans hut applying 10
11 12 13 25.

productivity goals and standards to ensure only effective canvassers remain employed.
Paid staff, including canvassers, need to be managed, and the use of productivity . goals is an indispensable management tool. Project Vote needs the ability to

14 15 16 . 17
-

develop an effective workforce, to compensate canvassers in relation to how well they do their jobs, and to terminate those who consistently underperform relative to benchmarks established by effective canvassers.
26, If NRS 293.805 is interpreted to ban productivity goals, Project Vote will be unable to conduct paid voter-registration drives, which are essential for spreading

18 19

its message to large numbers of unregistered Nevadans.

27. - Project Vote cannot afford to employ unproductive employees who cannot be

20

terminated for lack of productivity. If Project Voter were unable to manage its work force to achieve specific amounts.of political speech by paying canvassers in 6

relation to productivity, it would lose the advantages that paid canvassers provide. 28. Prohibiting Project Vote from paying canvassers to conduct voter-registration drives productively would drastically reduce the number of citizens that Project Vote.couldconvince to become registered voters and thereby would impose a severe burden on Project Vote's political advocacy activities and effectiveness. declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the tbregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Executed in Boston. Massachusetts on the date specified below.

10 11 12 II Brian Mellor Date

14

16 17

19 20 21

lig and Deterrin

Mimipula
MicLziel Alvarez Thad E. Hall Susan D. Hyde
3ditors

1.3 ROO

'S 1i i. I ION 1 , 1)('

Docket 57579 Docu ment 20 1 1- 19 127

on and in vote
,

flunit(-(.
he tesornces an

Or beca USX Illicit . . , 1 .:.:!11(.`I,TS that are neec,....

ic

d on Ballot Measure P
7,,:d Donovan and a

From ni , ae

culate petition.1 N on -7,-1rd of relativ, arc,'

C.:. LIR ir

OHie

-GAhering industry
ips proposhr,
lie reer it C10:[14* , 10

rOO

hicen1vcs fot Fraud reople (xi circulate tlieir egot. and (Ialifor:. paid pcWiiui , :firms only for valid the ballot has clinthe,i. expcn exceed
ft:OZ . :I 14 a n d :

reach Ow ballot di, sated by signa: Of

()I

c
imp(
4..
;IC

Hi.

Vt iti

11

of

1.;.11.!...1.

;11

IUIH 00

baCks!,rill
to

of

ii

CniiVCS

die ballot in itie In detail the validity . a 2.006 initiative- 1-917..

sigiLiont.

IZ,

990 and .igiurorr, q u.ility

.1

c.-snipaign and the indk iduals is is often indires. incasure proponents hire who subcontract thei' -,,,,11:riffr! qualification work it ill 0 or firms. I h. ncluding Arno,
owIi as Progrc
iv American r:cLdd 'it . \10 ' 1, 94 . ..

t weer) a J.)::11,:,1

inc.). National Pette:0; 11 ! ) , and S';11-1-

is,.:

administernw

eii .orts (in multiple catripaii;ns work it rekeives to

in

uiraneously. :tares,. wh.c: urn lurk: IC petition OITI state :id in any StI di!i..erew id l.: ,: naturr'cragc -cost per sipi cvell highe lonal Coo:
.ne the individuak
lao)

lii

.1--

pose of Signature Collectif. -.1.,

principal reason irresin eve] t the prtlpo ,,:: hoki is typically ection. In the its proponents 11;ik

inlorificati(m
i s 11101 ineaMI
Heel 4.10110L 1c0:111011.11.CVel

o f the statewide
Hi

tile 0'

225,000 !LiteSis very lab0r-11

tuot it
711::

dreel-level'' petial: over the course lushition cirtuLtors ::Iipulates an hourly aign (which ranges paiki to the petition :iih,onr.ractu,1
-

130

j1011

ctrcu

-one !hue, a
ot the &.

sigriatm,:
o e X atripit 's

,te eel soviet - visors (if (..1, creL -iHntucd mui,n

may nte.ms. Ac.,..()rd ra .suth Jtkc ting the iz:gna to h. 'it depend on the integlet 'n el

Cahlprhi.1

2(.11. 1 0 NIC1111111,11.1 0 ;iot ,hist two Wi. ,.1 , faaft:

itkeiS

NV1'11 hItCh

: iyaud in .signature crlk c. ft

tran

cli: bvton
Cr

i.1,1h11(alh)11

pt

docti:liented in

v.ho
irldudhlg

Fraud in Ballot Mei;- -1:;i:

flvCtfl:E! ii

11,:illification Petitions
center of numer:
iii

kiu.:1: put, aioii UlailJgetrici ha

S hit
C

flit

pc:
IT1

b a ll t iit I nca it

h.

' azi(UIN
ti; Ulu gJiherii -,;.:. iii
it is

ad n o p eP, o t
ianoina, where NVO, Susan ri grand .inry rs t0,oihe
tOt it
,

fraudulent :lye filed fratidulen;

ni

(foie!

.eo

red rck:ently tel curing inLia. The District of t.

in

titftic;t11

h . ." one . requi:cd by the P. presence of each p oti available to ite person it purr( .rciih the aflit:

igning affida.vi

atCUSCd oiuo proponents in the Di-Y:r ;dof Elections and Ethicsr cignatures were Oure-gatitering pro 1. Among the irre', failed to sign, of 1 .e:,'1 ,2 v ear tug that the signature , and that 'at- , Hrding to signilture is the genon 1).C. board 'C:i able in it ,agnature gatherffs, who ,idnnii thes did not circulate, a

ilnother voter irand one of three in hiring out-of,stak c. diect signatu oona ti ,atewitictar.

1 k:11(

lit) fidIli , ..",ititeri:d

thaliV s 11'

, 1,1t 1 1

*'1;11r:,

Vein rc.41', 11,h

t..11

ni)tdrired. petition N;:,.itc in whith they pet he act (ifsigning Pcti ?, ..iviinft !hey are No: air not

ir

paid and i t Loire signit - :tions. few

134

Todd

1\1[1t he or she wituY:

Rates of invalid Signatures on :}3.iilityt measure p

t.1-101.0 the oneo.h..):. ,2:, ;t to dernomti their cl .4ipter in 1: Jud in Lon:i being , US nan!,cs. , UI 0! ., , ,:nature ., at whi,:h ',% hen petition ui es ( fro t ; hand ,11 ,:
registe

cia Sheets
tar) : ,.,.aZi.;te tax. y rights 1,1

tra:ud, IntIttOn frant'. :r!..,tv be in a and Fre ,..1 Kochn -,1!..!

t

9
337 ;304 319.i4f,

4 2.7 58 123
I./

17 6 15,4 17.3 24.3 2

19,J 192.1:1.1

T .%!, t potential measure, ". I Washington re.tary of slat: : : ; on theniam:., t ; , rds of nam, 1-:. 75011s tin cxchw:Lng lift IThig is not found te signature on the
!

at ):-

19 1 2(3.1 113 17.4 03 13,9 6.4

1: 7

153. 71;-;

191.:34

C.

9t a;

<ind
'

the he or c.c; latch the regINtration Appears more than on

illustrat..-.
itCS (0

32

"

35 . :134

nai!nl n.nnes i ,;tr.....red voters. "11 igher rates of invalidity and those that have highc.1 ! 1iti0ns nutitiple times, NIIi
.

itii ' 7 1 1 L'ieSti, it pO.SSihle that t: , 1 corresponds of the use ot ttetitioix;

-

ii 1011 litk ihvalidiy; it --. ,Ked s3gn.:Ittire perc;:n:. petitions could not be found aim au on between :fticx.i.:, tent names - cause the sante narnes inVahChly hi(etV lit, naively sign .1: only r;2:n:., teret 'i voters si hove already signed a itI of -the fictitious n es, and that a ; ,Ji,ds to greater invali.
,

20 1;
1.773

!!.1 2 20.5

1'377:'i 19: 197./34

21
t-'1211

.7

175
179,,,,T.,;

/- 729 1-732 1-745 79(..W i , G96

7

777',24(3

179.2

;'-.eJ above that paid id. This hypothesic is;lig) iesqtualts t ,

greater incentiv ,.. with thc data in ta1 .11 ,. .

e rata

apaturt3s un

1 7 81 'in 1 1 1 .1

1511 LI s,;tv q? irt

il!

IS,,

lid

16,8 18.1 11.2 19,1 26.6 165 20.0 27.5 19.6

119.20,,,i 17r' 17" 1 11? -11 .

k(.1"11 deilion 8 1.8,111u

ik , r ,

ts riodcf.r . rates.

Searching for Signntnre Petition Fraud in Vtiashinw:ort: initiative 717

;I:nit fraud is ditni.ui; : petzlions wcre s:.ilitriitted by paid rel ignature. To eiamilie and 1, 1 detc; mine ilie' crsi...- :.ts of recoil. ing sigr2....ure ,, ,
1.1n11!eki

181,i,:,;7 18' 181.567 181.U67

e
Ifi

grei1i.:1
1:(

11

11'3

18;

litory rlovid
38

Si

: duce; cxan .

81)t3 15.6 15.9 21,9 23.0

254,2623 229,489 150,313

s :d7
,118.

1(8,vc3'.. oxampio, 1-)12, 14 [IL:.

ip l732. 1 1 r n...:6t expensive ballot .:st invalid rates sin( s , nt s -,- ; .inno r. voter.

;iour rat icr than per the lowest L. alRI

(81 ,, inatatA13 vial. 15 perc,:r.
1

, qualify a propo )osal Campaigns fo: - !!,

,:ashington. Roti;JIly qualific_ation campai ano paid pentionerS !.',vit.F1 ;no:A petnion,..r.,;. it ...in interesting ca.s ar petit:ouer , svcr.: to sign an the of !late did not enk.krce ates were hi 1:5 aittddYiL, tHir: 011 111151e,lie,{ 'ars evidcnc.,2 ii tehici a r.,.:!!1HHC; iCy Jo 110.1178:ot r3 ,.,.lence. Sonic Ion ,linp of the narne :..[hei petition affidavits %,-cre of all inclividwi ..,.inngton were purchased from t h isi challenge their validit5. the proponents fI. -, : sheets with 1110re 11:, the Jut)' 7, According to state law. were neetic..s Icri ct!,.:Ineasure for the genera.

cad

was the first flafi sheet

ThiS

ions with
07

were

rcd itii-

by .str.aturvs
Tho. Ott,,y

Todd Donovan and Oi?ntei A. Sdi;:j.:

the Secretary of Sti ,,v- , heck of 4 percent of the thi , an invalid was hier Ehan secretary pt.srcent of the signatures subi:Ii - ; R.30TARS.C.O.N-1.."rhe ivrceitt ,
."

i.

c"ikiWCSCL

Table

; all of the siabinitt 1.1.ic required to ,..;nduct a signature check of tent 1: )1fense, the sponsors
did Jiro tdee
it

ned

duplica
tres subniitted tilled out on the vientfot I

inva than the the notol.).: her thev. were lists the rate a fei. en t categories of the total) ver , .' I affi ,:.lavit on the t.1 ,1) 0: :lavit, 17.9 percent unlined by the secretary st, only 16,7 perce wnpleted ,Lidavit !IL Uiti.i nce. ,, it: :29 5111, trt,tace !:k slr.ned nt ,'ith in urcst, 16.1 percen: .1 percent of the petitic:ners 'cofll. in, the difference . if ink-stamped at Llas,

low qMons (4.0 percer:, ', ri the other hand, :iittt.tti to be Mvalid tee it ftind tu tb ,.2 state's of11 7 ,- i.-,1;oter ldi' niatt.h 01% . iatures
t.

d torcirca alid signat sigrA 1" Fagan, au

to ilavc CoLir t It a ioyanc. onie of the better known ink .tividuin !io 1-917 petitions submitted a siCo: , :aiu signatures submitted prtitions with il .ari the typically used an niL tani p for
iii

k"?11.1WC.Ii:' Mt " 1+,4;1) : L.tip

1 ti.t`titts0
t'tfi S i.

it

pet ne either an ink-stamped ose petitions with a submitted signa!ures 742 sit be invalid, tSee table 2.) !natures on petition. , rejected as in\ alid. le is a statistica the rate of awalitsTua hose with a declaration the backside (cotli., as :TV,: with affidavil. tattires etc rev. all significant 1, to come from :those who are

st thick (Table tures.) One al most ill the signati , .y Mike Fag ,.

(. ) Itell'SC.' ' For his pat t, au of which were "signed" with al Led as invalid. ItCH anti 1., Lkk F., ;: ;Jiz also names t' ot a possible totai petition shcets with at IC:, petitions with an ink [wk. \ ,..otning from Adams Counk,
k.'

uhtt -ttt

itions wi s it: :davit,

the twenty nr. did because they were not tound. Another one of petitions;which appears toho.'.:!i , c(licirctil,.;teil in

Table 8 3.
-

:Is far 1-917.

ig90. 20utt

f.

hui15410Pcf

Dupl. TeZaf

14.3 3.8

12,0 4.2 16.1

1",)tt 33 Ift:t

140 Table 8-4. 1.:dence of j ,avolici

-

,ivniuck 'ii
6, 1

Lf,1 hact

pelit:

20

12

55u r Y3 0 2 0 05u 65 0
f

Fred KiOn,fy None None

)3

nato

Jvits stamped -.soh ilvaliehty on Lscr. tint geographically ruu, tos Kitsap, I.ewis, Skamania, Stevens: and 1,11 , .m t:ie duplicate. rate On petitions with tnci. 1. .l,si.tts-o signatuic N. In 010:" Iit di4.1 rue duplicate ca CXCei.y.! 7 () per,..em is J ions with :er any hen ci n address in IC Siate'S I . .!;Iqr.i!

20 20

70 U 70.0 700 65 0

The 1J(.-:terrent 'Ofect of Requiring Affitiavits horn Petition . Circalitors

the
e.' signiV ii; gion law

ccnis
It mati( : ni

t,

pialL f, fyiriatine pelition he usf

7 the

c lu c li

(la
iti1a

re wines, and twe niJt found in the state's .1.er restrat ion database. It is e intentionally hctttious, le mimes on I'agan's petition Patrick, Mike Mike, Chauh C - hariie, and Jason Jason. on the back (includit):.t it liand-siv..ned and st:.1,3 , -,1 p:.'t i; ions without a signed u:.,an.s ..i were more sinlatures - not found - in the statc's voter registr.:Itio signatures of individuak not found in the database lot match those in the database). The average "not foin ,d 14.1 percent, compared ions with signed declaratioin , it, In contrast, retitions ens without Ji perccri J than Jac:
it'a

a, I
sent mi- 01..J...11 -Jon abont of the signature, ely on holding
1:11),:111:,111

His the pen,

petition 4::

!)nutted to ti Tho had origina i,cud would likel%

,

fraJkl. A,
pel criforccri..:1). dusplIe thy IA

Lite .AJ, loan, of sta f-1; , 'd to swear an

fccj
nue ha;

to reject os-cu;cd am wi J11 iigned

idavit
lfa.5:retory sct

indi N

daffereni

least three times. \ multiple petitions heir mmies and i:"1::1 1. or instance, one
.

ete circulated '

over .Ofj individuals ssition to say whether sr unwittinglv. ,Jdd) ess On at leas! s'.\ Centralia aodress .rers.

find only subtle ditierel .1J. ,:s rate; between davits and those: now. 'the use of signed a ciun it Slo si,i!..ture petition s ".
slicea;r.j:fit Lick atiialavit; ; !laV:.7 take ;ifildavits

have v.UJo atudayits. LIN.' gatherers and can link Mdividual pc ,.tin..ms to specific: individual:, lions, :1 would have ui.;:ntive to be more attend natures Dn .; petitio;1 tteCt t1cii s :Jet: ,

the

4704'30 30.:

, that th ,,ahd th . atc 0oak eith fraudttle lt nal in 2f,'Ar.; iires. f'rop=..NUC ..... eico ail signatui - es ever, sigfl.ItUie Lat state to determine :y may have limite.: to any tjtii.flI sheets circula!rs, the cti iLv1tS 0Ofl less than those with valid ri'quirc the secretary of stal.e s :I signed affidavit L ttlt it is signatures to $; deterred from fraud lalewise, if alttdcoil
iaO

Pre ,..s, 2004); Todd Donovan, ad the illiLiative. Industrial (.:nr41e):: in edii.r:.! by Larr : :.tri and ;OiekI :0 : 'lkinkicrac
0c: ,

1;ince

are

PrUeti,

ye

they
:4 E5

:ye 92.0 (or th,

i s Ivan

anor: toil a'

the 7;790,0(0 paid by ft of 2016 ballot, an, - Political

'Tea Legi:-, 1:eler

sh

11%1 ,21 ,
111,Y170,';

p,11e0 .

( 1,:inri'rf.::ty

f..

Cop,critrsion State reveal that ,p11110:1 a in's! 1:11',1011. However, there extireioctytill rk: I.L.ardet1 er , ded in recent years. 'YLIbUC contidene in the inracesf ,. ihat statewide initiative than 80 percvnt of respondt ,thts his share had fallen to ,:cre a good thing fbr the staCe.' 10 Whik
0.1

percent tO re3poide: .ics ...y: Feed that the initiati',:a ',:oters." 82 pec. .- ..ent ; . roups cariTaigns arc aiinroon Cot

and (1996): .11 7 id 6. i'VaLici ,:l y a new prooicm.i.cpui.:.: llic prIPCOS, d 0111t v the American states. In oit: from 1912, an Clt -cgon:-.., rti'dVoi that 60 percent of signaturi. ,, dum petition Jiidulent. In 1913, sevi.:11 ruccouri!, The Oklahonaa , 0 proportion of iraudui e ni tematic pc'tition bound in N(itc!. during this era and
ititi' 23

flosack, - glitizen locess.

are as olt.: a. example referen-.'novet.1 front ;

i
1) en: on

ding.

"0.1ggest.

coihseril the vote, s hao: ,ic that Nlashinp.: , : -:":; tact canlpaigns. nuiing retitioners to cign :Hat,iatt: , has had little impae, :lion: invalidity. More far-reaC!iin ..1 relarins arc necessai . :., this important den,: ,=.1he is to he mouttaii

the Tailah:6, see, 1995; 8. D.c, Code 000LJ t. Court of APPO ).11 ,1- AA 9;7, . 9. These f.iot are dot District Court of th e et ill v. Alonb,,,, V. State 0; Alontatio at 10. Quoted in ion Setbacks: ;ourt Ruks (

over fl iii eitt Reform and

(- Amendment!, to ',Lie initiativr nt 1: 00 t , ,re.(10.6ed in Ow (

ZevieW at nor,

200:

r the

:deo deii

ti

v.

Di -

dritl ' `cplerilhisq

and other:, illitiattxt: Preo

.lian

District, Cascade t 'DV No. 06-1162(d), 0634, 2004 SiT 2:7:1 liidit against judicial Act: Ninvitiller 11. 200ii:
Roll

1., ,

decpile

Todt;

' i.

Sant;;

145

Three ove:

111 e.
,thert, Dan Lol ,
fl

Oftke that of the

II:lice

;.19.175 were applovc.': , : uncleat why the

of the

'Car ,
,

tJjttitt I 3.The H all of tilt, It

ihe cost woni...19,:k legislature I t-c!erettdttitis to cr petralt ,,, of la- , hat 6 ever,,,, person : pt (-duke .kf" tte . 11,. ,,.vevcr. on Slt.r,.. i.)irtfort stating In its w, I
t !::Yr;t: ul.ttnie

1,

frorn tue at.tthc:

. .

L.q.tc1,(A

Is
;

Lin.,

11

..

"
- ,c)wingly and trtte
TV,

rego,: , \vitIlctui !Janie ,:tytd

iliCritlr.tV. ..1r.::.itt.irt'S (ti

'0, : ,. Ylingttm <ittt)r-

ygc

15, tioi
. 'trip , 1:1 us %vial 01, tiles for the 677 voy.- ,,

err

wit :u

:)tale

',armed pet :,, ,.-.1 ,2tary of :-::tat;.! tttitore check validation data t; GIS. EaLil VOLUM" in ttit I i 0-,ntained up tt
o

fOt

i MS
back of

oiled tinee new vartti hither or not thete

ere was a signal or :,..l.ttrat ion si pcfition

origitre ()n the 'Is no Nig',

tia

natiarc., .
t' t tlt()U,".

-natt.hed ,- l'agitn, Roy Pt , U tt'". ieret, or if the signature raet' data for the in.i.th , tt . I State (265,935 ,,:;.;otute.,t, LI

. I6.

t, .
1' . !

us by the ()1fice tekt signis,iltreS tei.lorten by It ,:

1 . ) 7

that office on July 7, of Site in a Sept:.

the total.
le:
1.!