Courage to go to court. The Secretary of State has been acting a bit like a clown recently. He noted that most initiative signors don't know the date at the time of signing so he seized the opportunity to say that the date must match or it is the same as a if the circulator committed fraud. It is a bit of a stretch, one that is sufficiently out of wack for a judge to have no choice but to toss the date rule.

Another link here.

UPDATE August 13, 2004. Court rules case moot. Plaintiffs complain about facts resulting in the mootness determination.

I of course think the plaintiffs need different facts altogether. They should expressly pay for signatures but collect them from both supporters and opponents of placement on the ballot. The paid signature gatherer then has no reason incentive to commit fraud because they get paid regardless. The comparison will be this process to a simple telephone poll. The Compelling state interest is to measure public support so as to not waste taxpayer dollars on a full-scale election. The fraudulent signature issue is separate and only tangential. This fraud prevention tactic cannot be legally distinguished from that of pollsters pounding the phone lines.