Legislators are forever looking for ways to "improve" the initiative process. And why not? Direct democracy infringes on their power.

California needs fewer ballot propositions, not more. The system needs a serious overhaul. But Senate Bill 168, sitting on Gov. Jerry Brown's desk, is a veiled attempt to limit initiatives in a loaded manner. Brown should veto it.

The bill deals with one of the more obnoxious aspects of direct democracy – signature gatherers who foist petitions in front of voters while scrambling to gather the hundreds of thousands or million-plus names needed on petitions.

They are political equivalent of carnival barkers. Their job is to sell voters on whatever petition they're pushing. They give voters slick pitches and ignore fine details of which laws are made.

For their effort, these independent contractors are paid on a per-signature basis. With enough money, initiative promoters will be able to hire sufficient numbers of signature gathers who will lure enough voters into signing their petitions to qualify measures.

Sen. Ellen Corbett's SB 168 would ban payment based on a per-signature basis, contending that such a system encourages fraud and forgery. Instead, signature gatherers would be paid an hourly or daily wage. Volunteers, of course, could still gather signatures.

Let's leave aside fundamental questions about whether the state should dictate how independent contractors should be paid.

Certainly, no one is in favor of forgery or fraud. Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who supports the legislation, reports there have been 46 prosecutions and 33 convictions of petition-related crimes. But those statistics date back to 1994. An average of three prosecutions yearly hardly seems like a crime spree.

Supporters include organized labor, which long has made heavy use of direct democracy. Unions could rely on members and their family and friends to sign petitions, and perhaps could gain an advantage over rivals if the pay-by-signature system were outlawed.

Indeed, the California Chamber of Commerce and other major business groups that also are major users of direct democracy oppose the measure. But wealthy businesses would be able to pay to place their measures on the ballots.

The groups that may be disadvantaged are smaller ones from the left and right. The Humane Society, promoters of numerous initiatives including the 2008 measure that required farmers to provide larger cages for chickens, is among the opponents. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association also opposes it.

The chicken initiative wasn't an appropriate use of the initiative process. The Jarvis group rarely comes up with ideas with which we agree.

The initiative system is flawed. But the bill by Corbett, an East Bay Democrat, would make a bad system worse by raising the cost of qualifying measures, freezing out less wealthy groups, and making direct democracy more of a captive of well-heeled interest groups.

Initiative reform? Yes, but it should be comprehensive and bipartisan, not aimed at re-tilting the playing field for a particular faction.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.