In his attack on Rep. Sherry Appleton's bill to ban pay-per signature, blogger Stephan Sharkansky falls down the stairs:
He also suggested I look at Oregon's Measure 26, which similarly banned per-signature compensation and survived a 9th Circuit Appeal. I did. There was never any serious evidence that per-signature payments produce more fraud than other forms of compensation, but the 9th Circuit upheld the political decision to ban such compensation regardless.
Makes you wonder what he considers "serious evidence" because Oregon brought in criminal investigators to make their case. The Oregon law was upheld because the state was able to prove, unlike a similar ban in Colorado, that it prevented fraud. Andrew M. Gloger with the Initiative & Referendum Institute writes: