Press Release - HB 08-1406 Veto Message
OFFICE OF GOV. BILL RITTER, JR.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, MAY 30, 2008
CONTACT:
Evan Dreyer, 720.350.8370, evan.dreyer@state.co.us
GOV. RITTER VETO MESSAGE ON HOUSE BILL 1406
May 30, 2008
Honorable Colorado House of Representatives
66th General Assembly
Second Regular Session
State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am filing with the Secretary of State House Bill 08-1406, "Paid Petition Circulators." I vetoed this bill as of _______, and this letter sets forth my reasons for doing so.
House Bill 08-1406 would establish a new set of requirements for circulating petitions, and impose heightened burdens on paid petition circulators and entities that organize the circulation of petitions. By creating a situation where paid petition circulators and volunteer petition circulators would operate by a different set of standards, I believe this bill would violate both the Colorado and the United States Constitutions.
With respect to the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Supreme Court has made it clear that "the Legislature may not impose restrictions which limit in any way the right of the people to initiate proposed laws and amendments except as those limitations are provided in the constitution itself." Colorado Project-Common Cause v. Anderson, 495 P.2d 218, 219 (Colo. 1972). The Colorado Constitution outlines the form, style, and review procedures required for initiative and referendum petitions; however, it makes no differentiation between paid petition circulators and volunteer petition circulators. See Colo. Const. art. V. By imposing requirements on paid petition circulators that are not imposed on volunteer petition circulators, House Bill 08-1406 goes beyond Colorado's constitutional limitations, and would, therefore, be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.
House Bill 08-1406's differential treatment of paid as opposed to volunteer petition circulators likely violates the United States Constitution. In 1988, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a Colorado law criminalizing the use of paid petition circulators was unconstitutional because it violated initiative proponents' First Amendment rights. See Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 425-28 (1988) (applying strict scrutiny to restrictions on the right to petition). Eleven years later, the United States Supreme Court again struck down a Colorado law, this time a constitutional amendment, that would have required that petition circulators be Colorado residents and that they be registered voters. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 193-94 (1999). In holding Colorado's restrictions unconstitutional, the Supreme Court stated that the law would "limit the number of voices who will convey [the initiative proponents'] message" and therefore "imposes a burden on political expression that the State has failed to justify." Id. at 195. Theses cases teach us that the State bears a heavy burden when it comes to regulating petition circulators in a manner that will meet constitutional muster. In my view, the differential treatment of paid versus volunteer petition circulators contained in House Bill 08-1406 would not survive a constitutional challenge.
Accordingly, I have vetoed this bill.
Sincerely,
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Governor