## Facts

- North Dakota allowed citizen-initiated measures but required petition circulators to be North Dakota residents and at least 18 years old.
- North Dakota also barred compensating circulators “on a basis related to the number of signatures obtained,” while permitting noncontingent pay (e.g., salary and expenses) with specified sponsor disclosures.
- The State adopted the measures after reported abuses in earlier signature drives, including fabricated or improper signatures and large numbers of invalidated signatures tied to commission-style payment.
- The plaintiffs (initiative sponsors and related organizations) wanted to hire nonresident professional circulators and use per-signature compensation to reduce cost and increase efficiency.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the residency requirement and per-signature pay ban violated the First Amendment and Equal Protection.
- The district court upheld both provisions, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether North Dakota’s residency requirement for initiative petition circulators violates the First Amendment.
2. Whether North Dakota’s prohibition on paying circulators per signature violates the First Amendment.
3. Whether the residency and compensation rules violate the Equal Protection Clause by treating circulators differently from other political participants.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the Secretary of State.
- The residency requirement was upheld as a permissible regulation justified by preventing fraud and protecting the integrity of the initiative process.
- The per-signature compensation ban was upheld as a limited restriction that still allowed other forms of payment and served anti-fraud interests.
- The equal protection challenge failed because the regulatory distinctions were rationally related to legitimate state interests.

## Legal Principles

- Petition circulation involves First Amendment activity, but states may regulate the mechanics of ballot-access processes.
- Under election-law balancing, the degree of scrutiny depends on the character and magnitude of the burden on speech; modest burdens may be justified by important regulatory interests.
- A residency requirement for circulators can be justified by interests in fraud prevention, accountability, and enforceability (including investigative and subpoena-related concerns).
- Banning per-signature payment can be justified as reducing incentives to falsify or mishandle signatures while leaving open alternative compensation methods.
- Equal protection challenges to such election regulations generally receive rational-basis review absent a suspect classification or an independently established severe burden on a fundamental right.

## Conclusion

North Dakota’s requirements that petition circulators be state residents and that they not be paid on a per-signature basis were upheld as constitutionally permissible, modest election-administration measures reasonably related to preventing fraud and safeguarding the integrity of the initiative process.


Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Jaeger, 241 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2001)