Ohio Initiative and Referendum Court Decisions
From Ballotpedia
Ohio Code 3599.111
The following is Ohio Code 3599.111 which outlined the perimeters of what you were allowed to pay petition circulators. The ruling became effective on March, 31 2005.
(A) As used in this section, “registering a voter” or “registering voters” includes any effort, for compensation, to provide voter registration forms or to assist persons in completing or returning those forms . (B) No person shall receive compensation on a fee per signature or fee per volume basis for circulating any declaration of candidacy, nominating petition, initiative petition, referendum petition, recall petition, or any other election-related petition that is filed with or transmitted to a board of elections, the office of the secretary of state, or other appropriate public office. (C) No person shall receive compensation on a fee per registration or fee per volume basis for registering a voter. (D) No person shall pay any other person for collecting signatures on election-related petitions or for registering voters except on the basis of time worked. (E)(1) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of receiving improper compensation for circulating a petition, a felony of the fifth degree. (2) Whoever violates division (C) of this section is guilty of receiving improper compensation for registering a voter, a felony of the fifth degree. (3) Whoever violates division (D) of this section is guilty of paying improper compensation for circulating a petition or registering a voter, a felony of the fifth degree.[1]
Rulings
On July 22, the final brief was filed in the 6th circuit in Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters, no. 07-3031 court had ruled the law unconstitutional [2].
Here is the full text of the courts decision:
Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters et al., Case No. 1:05-CV-212, decided November 27, 2006, the United States District Court ruled the statute violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Professional signature-gathering companies showed that the prohibition on pay per signature compensation would raise the costs and increase the time associated with obtaining the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot. The Court also found that evidence of fraud in certain petition efforts did not establish a causal nexus between the fraud and the method of payment to circulators. Held: the statute did not justify the burden placed on the initiative proponents core political speech rights.[3]
