Take the initiative

Oregon’s wide-open initiative system, which allows ordinary people to put pretty much any matter on the ballot and let voters decide, is one of those political quirks, like our aversion to a sales tax and self-service gas pumps, that make the state unique.

But some people think the state’s system is too lenient.

The list includes Oregon’s new Secretary of State, Kate Brown.

Brown has introduced legislation, House Bill 2500, which she contends would curb abuses of the initiative system while preserving citizens’ rights to take their case to voters.

Her bill would, for instance, give the state five days rather than three to do background checks of people who want to gather signatures (a certain number of valid signatures are required to put initiatives on the ballot).

Brown’s bill also would allow the secretary of state to invalidate signatures gathered by a person who’s been convicted of fraud, forgery or identify theft, or has been convicted of violating certain election laws.

Those changes make sense because they help to ensure that signatures are legitimate. That’s essential to preserving the integrity of the initiative system.

But other parts of Brown’s bill would unnecessarily discourage people from proposing initiatives.

One section would make the chief petitioner — the person who sponsors the initiative — liable in cases when, according to the bill, the petitioner “should have known” that a signature-gatherer broke the law.

Under current law, the state has to prove that a chief petitioner knew about such violations.

The current law is sufficient.

It’s unfair to expect petitioners to know in advance that a signature-gatherer intends to flout the law.

The state’s main goal should be to ensure that people who sign initiative petitions have the legal right to do so, and that they sign of their own free will. House Bill 2500, even without the tougher rules for petitioners, would further that goal.