later twenty six was overwhelmingly approved by the voters in all of oregon in november two thousand and two measure forced to prohibit payment by the signature of two persons circulating only initiative and referendum petitions measure twenty six does same piece of paper so let it go out in signatures measure twenty six does not apply the only distinction between the two is the part of my message over am i advocating for the for the support of  do that make that particular section of the constitution the single subject it's actually in the legislative article for it applies to legislate measures as well as initiated a referee and were further measures the that is fairly liberal as compared to california the hook if you will and in oregon is what we call the our my test is under article seventeen section one of our constitution it says that no two amendments to the marble but nevertheless to them that's the measure still regulates based on the content of the petition that you're circulating they are twenty six only applies if i'm if i'm advocating on behalf of viewpoint it's a product is a broader viewpoint than opposed to should i vote for this tax or not it's should i put a measure on the ballot or should i recall this person so the fact of the matter is either one of that if either one of those petitions whether measure twenty six applies to append solely upon the content of my message that's it that's all that's the only determining factor between whether measured twenty six would apply a recall or nominate petition versus an initiative or referendum petition now there is a there is a dispute on the motion intervene which i wasn't playing and getting into those arguments unless the court would like to thing that's correct but that but the court did not the court said that the courts findings were actually that they had different interests in the outcome of the litigation not that they had the same interests political speech must be narrowly tailored to achieve a governmental interest district court and citizen attendance held that measure twenty states did not implicate core political speech this final is an error and buckley the supreme court provides the economic relationship between the parties so much that it created created a deterrence for a professional circulators to come to the state of colorado and ply their trade therefore it diminished the ability economic relationship between the parties that has said that the record shows deters individuals from coming to work to a company colorado plying their trade that by diminishing the the circulars available  necessarily burn speech the critical error the district court needed in this case is that the court says well we didn't produce one single professional circulator he testified that both were measured thirty six they w think anybody would be an expert on whether or not she come to oregon and why i think it would be nice chords i've made it home but i'm just suspecting that she would probably know whether or not she'd come to oregon and why and she says very clearly in  not coming or going and they all testified for a measure twenty six years because a major twenty six hour court could come out with a decision with a conclusion otherwise is absolutely beyond me the evidence in the record absolutely demonstrates a that there is a burden as that as the court in both meyer and buckley said that there is a burden that must be shown that the challenge of loss is diminishing the number of voices available to go out and circulate the matter and that evidence in this record could not be more clear how how we've come to a different conclusion and that's what i don't understand it was no evidence presented b or the question of whether or not we can have work quotas i think it's still a question that hasn't been answered under the measure there are still dealing with the regulations that there was some complaints that have been filed it particular y with regard to petition for referendum petition for one that they are imposing quotas was in violation of measure twenty six so in those as far as i'm aware those complaints are still outstanding  passed away earlier this year testifies that he's getting about a thousand signatures i can't remember the normal signature gary get about a thousand signatures excuse me five thousand signatures and now he's only experiencing a rate of about a signatures but regardless of what what the experience of the italian interveners or the state or whomever might have been the fact of the matter is that the evidence in the record demonstrated there are that there are a circular professional novo are clearly erroneous standard under under either standard we think we carry the day because again the court says we didn't produce one single professional circulator it said they wouldn't come to oregon but for major twenty six well your ordinary burden or severe burden i don't i don't know that that dick that degree of this difficulty if you will is even i think we can clear either bar the evidence in the record demonstrates that  out on the streets december eighth two thousand and three jean burke testified that she named one complaint there's also evidence in the record that bill article may has made three complacence for complaints in three this record as it was in two thousand and two prior to measure twenty six they cannot demonstrate based on the facts of this record they have a lot of speculation a lot of people who think well i think that her signature payment if you read their will we think that the things that argument intentionally misunderstand the whole concept of what about the content based regulation this this regulation applies universally to every message with that the book to begin with these are creatures of oregon law the initiative and referendum petitions are creatures of one provision of the oregon constitution i recall and and a candidate nominating petitions in special district officials and i don't know how many other types of petitions or other creatures of oregon law what kind of petition it is not part of the message that this is the the message is what's contained in the petition what kind of petition it is it's just the vehicle is the law making vehicle  require that you not discriminate against one message in favor of another message is discriminating based on the kind of speech i would just say though in that respect that that's not what we're doing we're not whether whether the message is contained in a  in one lawmaking vehicle under organ larn another doesn't that's that that's not part of the message you don't need to look at the message to find out whether this law applies you just look at which law making vehicle is being used to convey the message and that's not discriminating on the basis of content that's simply oregon applying different procedures to different lawmaking processes which i think is is is not prohibited by the federal constitution and i  think that i think that the supreme court provide some useful guidance on that point in its in its mcconnell versus s b c decision regarding the campaign finance act of eight essentially that led to the state in this case the congress and in that case can identify where its attention needs to get to be drawn addressed and deal with problems as they as they organ need not regulate all petitions in order to lawfully regulate these particular lawmaking vehicles bided under under the or and constitution ever claimed ever to have done any work in oregon before and their assertion that somehow measure twenty six is going to change whether they would come to or the implication that it might change whether they would come to organise future creates of somebody but then it turns out that even that person that they're reporting their states brown has other reasons why they aren't interested in circulating petitions in oregon so it's a sort of court and it has that in addition as a as a as a very solid reason for claim ever to have been in oregon and she doesn't state that she would come to oregon if it wasn't for measure twenty six she just says that she's not going to with measure twenty six in place so that hardly shows that pla have there's any reduction in the number of choices available to carry plaintiffs message in support of their at their oregon petitions they haven't shown a single person who would be here but for mr twenty six and it was not because that and so in those circumstances i think that the district court was quite correct in the end not accepting plaintiff's evidence on the issue and in finding that the believe the evidence did not amount to a severe burden if it amounted to any burden at all i think that the court's language was little if any something to that effect in place quite as fundamentally are laboring under the mis the measure is designed to eradicate a pervasive problem with fraud in the initial process oregon's concerns aren't just with a criminal prosecution of products already her organs got a compelling interest in preventing the fraud in the first place that's because it's a measure twenty six primarily regulates business relationship because it doesn't directly regulate or restrict speech because the evidence establishes little if any indirect burden on speech and because to regulation it's content based the court was actually correct in identifying the nominating and recall process as an entirely different election process they may have used one mechanism that is similar squared is not that are the costs are not out of line that there is an inherent accountability because if you're sending people out on the street to gather signatures you're paying by the hour they're going to want to make sure they're working excluded from being counted because we had evidence that they were fractionally gathered by we had we had affidavits from people who said that's not my signature and the secretary of state said they have to count they have to be counted and so for signature there is certainly an incentive to get more signatures either by roger only asking for them or by forging them and that's the last point i know that i'm out of time but to be clear doesn't really matter what we tell them in oregon that is something that doesn't matter it's illegal we have the right thank you very much over can be could not be any more clear that the court has said a couple of times about this idea between burden in severe burden and i'd like to just make that make it clear that under myron under buckley when it comes to regulations on corporate little speech the question is whether or not it birds but whether or not the regulation burdens that no one can cation and in fact if you look at the letter that counsel this if you violate measure twenty six you still get on the ballot if it was a ballot access regulation it would seem to me that you wouldn't be able to get on the ballot in the council as provided this crucial opinion regarding s to eighty point zero seven zero which requires a certain disclaimer on the ballot titles for lack of a better term well if you don't put that disclaimer on there you don't get on the ballot in the issue of groups there was a ballot access regulation we're