With nearly all signature gathering efforts halted due to COVID-19, it’s no surprise that many campaigns are expecting to fall short of the needed number of signatures to qualify for the ballot in November. However, this isn’t the case for everyone. In fact, one Missouri initiative just turned in nearly double the required signatures to the Secretary of State. They were the only Missouri campaign to submit signatures by the May 3rd deadline.
Healthcare for Missouri reportedly turned in over 350,000 signatures on May 1 for their Medicated Expansion Initiative, which far surpasses the 160,199 valid signatures needed to qualify for ballot. Now, the Secretary of State will send the petition sheets to each of the counties for verification.
Background on the Measure:
The Missouri Medicaid Expansion Initiative would require the state government to provide Medicaid for people with an income that is 133% of the federal poverty level. To date, 36 states and Washington D.C, have expanded Medicaid while 14 have not.
How did they do it?
The measure has had a steady inflow of cash from two political action committees, Healthcare for Missouri and Missourians for Healthcare. The total campaign contributions are over three million, with the top donors of Missouri Hospital Association, The Fairness project, and The Washington University. You can see the full finance reports here and here.
Fieldworks, perhaps the largest progressive signature-gathering firm, worked alongside volunteers from September to February. They have built a solid reputation in the ballot initiative industry.
Unusual Signature Overages
One of the curious details about this initiative is the number of signatures collected and filed—more than 215% of the minimum. Because additional signatures are expensive, such large overage is unusual; if a campaign believes its validity rate is in the normal range (roughly 70% for paid circulators), standard practice is to collect 150% to 175% percent of the minimum. It is not clear whether the proponents in this instance were either (a) unusually cautious and insensitive to costs or (b) compensating for lower-than-normal validity rates. If the latter, the counties’ review will presumably show it.
