6/04/2004
Deep election-law wonkery and bullet train
Supporters of high-speed rail file suit claiming signatures on a rail recall petition aren't valid. They say the law requires paid gatherers of signatures to put their name and address on each petition they turn in.
If that's so, it could be "huge, absolutely huge," according to one legal expert. It could invalidate petitions for other constitutional amendment drives.
It looks as though the law this refers to is Florida Statutes 100.371 (2)(c) and 106.19 (3) and 106.191.
100.371 (2)(c) says Each paid petition circulator must place his or her name and address on each petition form for which he or she is gathering signatures on behalf of the sponsor of the proposed initiative amendment. The sponsor of a proposed initiative amendment is responsible for ensuring that the name and address of the paid circulator appear on the petition form prior to its submission to the supervisor for verification.
Seems pretty straightforward, except this is all given in a statute-book footnote which talks about 1998 constitutional changes -- among those considered by the Constitutional Revision Commission? who knows? -- that did not appear to have been enacted.
Very confusing. But if the anti-rail petition is thrown out, I wonder about the slot-machines-in-Dade petitions and the double-your-homestead-exemption petitions. Too bad, heh-heh.
If that's so, it could be "huge, absolutely huge," according to one legal expert. It could invalidate petitions for other constitutional amendment drives.
It looks as though the law this refers to is Florida Statutes 100.371 (2)(c) and 106.19 (3) and 106.191.
100.371 (2)(c) says Each paid petition circulator must place his or her name and address on each petition form for which he or she is gathering signatures on behalf of the sponsor of the proposed initiative amendment. The sponsor of a proposed initiative amendment is responsible for ensuring that the name and address of the paid circulator appear on the petition form prior to its submission to the supervisor for verification.
Seems pretty straightforward, except this is all given in a statute-book footnote which talks about 1998 constitutional changes -- among those considered by the Constitutional Revision Commission? who knows? -- that did not appear to have been enacted.
Very confusing. But if the anti-rail petition is thrown out, I wonder about the slot-machines-in-Dade petitions and the double-your-homestead-exemption petitions. Too bad, heh-heh.
