A lawsuit filed recently to challenge new requirements for Arkansans seeking to initiate new laws or to let voters weigh in on passed legislation raises interesting questions about a process fundamental to government “by the people.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Arkansas Public Law Center filed a lawsuit against the state over a law that imposes new expectations on paid signature gatherers.

Secretary of State Mark Martin is the named defendant. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Neil Sealy, director of Arkansas Community Organizations, and Paul Spencer, founder and co-chairman of Regnant Populus, a group that seeks a constitutional amendment to restrict gifts to elected oft cials.

He said his oft ce is reviewing the lawsuit, as is Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. It is McDaniel’s job to defend the constitutionality of all state laws but this one also happened to be part of his legislative agenda last session.

Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution allows a citizen to propose a law, constitutional amendment or referendum on a law passed by the state Legislature by submitting a petition with a specifi ed number of signatures to thesecretary of state.

Under the new law, those who launch petition campaigns must provide the names and addresses of any paid signature gatherers, and those gatherers must also be registered with the state.

Volunteer canvassers don’t have to be identifi ed the same way.

The law doesn’t ban the use of paid canvassers but it does attempt to control their use, which has been blamed in part for the submission of thousands of invalid signatures on various petitions.

Arkansas doesn’t make it easy for citizens to redress the government, so to speak, by off ering up their own laws or changes to the state’s Constitution.

But there is a process and, according to the ACLU and the Public Law Center, these restrictions will have a “chilling eff ect” on potential petition campaigns.

The law interferes with the freedom of the people in procuring petitions, reduces the pool of potential canvassers and increasesthe expense of obtaining canvassers.

“Thus,” the lawsuit says the law “makes it unwarrantably dift cult to obtain the requisite number of signatures to appear on the ballot.”

The lawsuit maintains that the law infringes on the rights of the people to exercise freedom of speech through the initiative and referendum process.

It’s a lofty argument and will play out in the prosecution of the case.

Here’s the practical problem with the petition process. It really doesn’t matter what the issue is.

Advocates for any proposal face the same dilemma - whether it is an out-of-state entrepreneur trying to get the state to allow casino gambling (and give the business to himself or herself) or an in-state organization seeking stricter ethics laws.

They must reach a particular head count, a suftcient number of valid signatures, to get the issue to the ballot. And there are time constraints on when the process may begin and must end.

Toward the end of virtually all petition campaigns, there is a rush to get more signatures, enough to appear at least as if the number is suft cient - even if many of them will ultimately be struck as invalid. Just having signatures, any signatures, buys more time for thepetitioners to gather more names and qualify for the ballot.

This new law changes the timetable, too, reducing the time allowed to gather additional signatures. The lawsuit challenges that change, too.

The point of the legislation was to clean up the process, curtail fraud in signature-gathering and unburden the oft cials who must verify all those signatures. Tighter controls theoretically would lessen how many bad signatures get submitted.

Locally, the best example of the use of paid canvassers came in the wet-dry election last year in Benton County. Wealthy donors provided the money to allow professionals to gather signatures, and they were apparently quite careful about who they hired and how they did their work.

Many unpaid volunteers also gathered the ridiculously large number of signatures necessary to get that issue to the ballot.

But, without the paid canvassers and professional management, Benton County might still be dry.

Based on the eventual vote, a majority of Benton County voters wanted the change. And they got it through the petition process. BRENDA BLAGG IS A FREELANCE COLUMNIST AND LONGTIME JOURNALIST IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS.

Opinion, Pages 12 on 10/27/2013