Hearing on paid-signature disclosure bill highlights safety and wording questions

The Senate State Administration Committee heard House Bill 201, which would require paid signature gatherers to disclose that they are compensated and to state their legal residence while collecting signatures for ballot measures.

Sponsor Representative Braxton Mitchell told the committee the bill “mandate[s] that any paid signature gatherer in the state of Montana would disclose their status as a compensated worker and that the state and state their legal residence.” He said the measure is supported by the Secretary of State and aimed at increasing transparency so voters can evaluate petition-gathering campaigns.

Austin James of the Secretary of State’s office characterized HB 201 as “a good transparency bill” and said it addresses concerns about out-of-state paid gatherers and improper conduct during prior signature drives.

Patrick Webb of the Montana Family Foundation and Amelia Gilsdorf of FGA Action testified for the bill. Webb recounted incidents he described from the last election cycle, including vehicles with out-of-state license plates gathering signatures at a local event despite rules against solicitation there. “Where transparency is lacking, we invite in behavior that is to the disservice of the public,” Webb said.

S. K. Rossi of the ACLU of Montana testified in opposition but offered a narrow path to remove that opposition: require a visible name-and-residence badge rather than a mandate that gatherers verbally state their name and state to every potential signer. Rossi said the verbal requirement can be impractical and raise safety concerns for gatherers; she recounted several incidents she said occurred in prior cycles, including “1 signature gatherer had a cup of urine thrown on them. 1 signature gatherer had a gun pulled on them.” The ACLU said eliminating the verbal requirement in favor of a visible badge would satisfy the group's concerns.

Committee members asked whether badges already exist and whether the bill text requires an individual gatherer’s name; witnesses said the bill as drafted does not explicitly require a name on the badge but that the Secretary of State would set badge details. Director James said most complaints the office received were from citizens who could not get information because gatherers walked away; he said a badge alone might not solve every situation and that he would work with the sponsor on specifics.

Representative Mitchell closed by reiterating the bill’s purpose: transparency so voters know whether a gatherer is paid and where they legally reside. The hearing concluded with debate about a possible amendment to require a name on the badge; the transcript records no committee vote on final disposition.