When Jeff Lushbaugh ran for a Glendale City Council seat back in 1999,
I was pretty tough on him. I thought he had almost as little knowledge of
the city itself as he had of the top issues, and wrote back then, "He
makes me grumpy." Now Lushbaugh's unique name is back in the news, albeit
in news that's followed only by a handful of legal specialists and
activists in 1st Amendment issues.
Lushbaugh scored 209 votes in 1999, 10 votes ahead of the last-place
finisher in a pack of 13. In a recent decision from the California State
Court of Appeal, Second District, Lushbaugh came in last in his case
against Home Depot. The decision is one of an ongoing series that is
redefining the rights and limitations of those who want to exercise
"speech activities" protected by the U.S. Constitution, and those who
want to protect private property rights, which are guaranteed in the same
document.
Though his occupation was listed in the 1999 voter handbook as
"investment analyst," Lushbaugh owns a firm paid to collect petition
signatures. Aside from gathering signatures to advance candidates, it's
an industry born of the need to gather thousands of signatures to get
legislation state officials can't or won't enact themselves approved by
voters. Collectors are hired by populist movements with cash, by wealthy
advocates of a given proposal or candidate, and by industries looking to
enact self-serving legislation, of which the insurance industry is
perhaps the best example.
No matter your politics, initiatives you absolutely despised probably
made it to the ballot thanks to paid signature gatherers, just as
initiatives you eagerly welcomed as long-overdue reforms wouldn't have
made it without paid gatherers. I've been told by experts that
Lushbaugh's firm is successful and well regarded in the field.
The most important resource to anyone gathering signatures, paid or
otherwise, is a steady stream of people. There was a time such crowds
were found at the town square. But modern times, and the law, have come
to regard malls and movie theaters as today's equivalent public gathering
places.
A Glendale planning official once explained to me that compelling
developers to include parks and public amenities in their projects, like
those sketched into various plans for the controversial Town Center
project, are desirable because they give the city relief from countless
headaches. Forget direct savings, like not having to buy or maintain
property. Whether it's handling a homeless population, or dealing with
