Petition Power: Can Many Signatures Change Federal Law?

Petitions are a powerful way to amplify your voice and indicate to policymakers that there is a demand for the cause you care about. While the number of signatures on a petition is important, it's also crucial to remember that each signature represents a real person who is part of a community supporting the same cause. In the United States, the First Amendment protects the right to petition the federal government for change. The “We the People” petition website, launched by the White House under the Obama administration, required petitions to receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days to warrant an official response. This threshold was increased from the previous requirement of 25,000 signatures due to the website's surge in popularity. While the We the People website was shut down in 2018, petitions with a significant number of signatures can still capture media attention and influence policymakers. In the UK, petitions that reach 100,000 signatures on the Government and Parliament website are almost always considered for debate in Parliament.

Petitions in the US are protected by the First Amendment

Petitions are a way for citizens to convey their concerns to the government and request action. In the United States, the right to petition is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". This right was originally confined to demands for "a redress of grievances" but has since expanded to include demands for the government to exercise its powers in the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and to address their views on politically contentious matters.

The interpretation of the Petition Clause must be guided by the objectives and aspirations that underpin the right to petition. While the right to petition and the right to free speech are distinct, the US Supreme Court has largely interpreted the Petition Clause as coextensive with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. However, in its 2010 decision in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, the Court acknowledged that there may be differences between the two clauses. The Court's opinion in McDonald v. Smith has been interpreted to mean that the right to petition cannot extend further than the right to speak, but McDonald held that speech within a petition is subject to the same standards for defamation and libel as speech outside of it.

The right to petition is not just a theoretical construct but has been put into practice throughout US history. For example, former President John Quincy Adams and other Representatives successfully repealed a series of gag rules adopted by the House of Representatives starting in 1836 that automatically tabled anti-slavery petitions, prohibiting their discussion. The repeal was achieved on the basis that these rules violated the Constitutional right to "petition the government for the redress of grievances" guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In modern times, the Obama administration launched a petition website called "We the People," demonstrating the continued recognition of the right to petition. Any petition submitted with at least 100,000 signatures would receive a formal response from the administration. While the website was shut down in 2018, it exemplified how the right to petition is protected and facilitated by the US government.

The UK requires 10,000 signatures for a government response

In the UK, a petition that receives 10,000 signatures will prompt a response from the government. Petitions that reach 100,000 signatures will be considered for debate in Parliament by the Petitions Committee. There is no automatic parliamentary debate of those that pass this threshold. However, the government will respond to all petitions that surpass 10,000 signatures.

The UK's petition process is a way for the public to engage with the government and influence policy. Anyone can create or sign a petition, as long as they are a British citizen or UK resident. The UK Parliament's Petitions Committee will consider all petitions that receive 100,000 signatures or more. The committee then decides whether to forward the petition to Parliament for debate.

While the UK petition system provides a platform for citizens to voice their opinions and influence policy, it is just one aspect of the country's democratic process. Other factors, such as media attention, lobbying, and direct engagement with Members of Parliament, also play a role in shaping legislation.

The impact of petitions can vary. For example, a petition with 800,000 signatures prompted a debate in Parliament about providing the meningitis B vaccine to all children in the UK. In another instance, a petition with over 1 million signatures, initiated by footballer Marcus Rashford, called for an end to child food poverty and resulted in the government providing free school meals. On the other hand, some petitions with over 100,000 signatures, such as the one to deport Piers Morgan from the UK, have not resulted in the desired outcome.

In the US, the We the People petition website was launched during the Obama administration. This website required petitions to reach 100,000 signatures within 30 days to receive an official response from the White House. However, the site was shut down in 2018 and has not been relaunched. While the "We the People" website allowed citizens to engage with the federal government, it's important to note that the right to petition the government is protected by the First Amendment and is not dependent on any specific website or platform.

The Obama administration raised the signature threshold to 100,000

Petitions are a strategic way to amplify your voice and indicate to policymakers that there is a demand behind the causes you care about. While petitions of any size can be powerful, a threshold of signatures is often required for an official response from the government.

In 2013, the Obama administration raised the signature threshold to 100,000 signatures for petitions to receive an official response from the White House. This applied to the "We the People" petition website launched by the White House during Obama's presidency. The new threshold required petitions to receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days to warrant an official response. This change was made due to the surge in popularity of the "We the People" website, with its usage more than doubling in the final two months of 2012. The previous threshold was 25,000 signatures, which many petitions easily surpassed.

The "We the People" website allowed anyone with a name and email address to create a petition. While this site was shut down in 2018 and has not been relaunched, it played a significant role in giving people a platform to voice their opinions and engage in important policy debates. The site received over 141,310 petitions and an average of 807 signatures per hour.

The Obama administration's decision to raise the signature threshold to 100,000 reflects the increasing popularity of online petition platforms and the recognition that petitions can bring attention to issues that might otherwise be overlooked. While a 100,000-signature petition does not directly result in federal law, it does guarantee an official response from the administration and indicates significant public support for a particular cause or issue.

Petitions can be critical of the UK government

Petitions are a strategic way to amplify your voice and indicate to policymakers that there is a demand behind the causes you care about. They can be critical of the UK government and can be used to notify decision-makers of the public's concerns. In the UK, petitions with over 10,000 signatures receive a response from the government, and those with over 100,000 signatures are considered for debate in Parliament.

An analysis of petitions submitted to the UK government between 2015 and 2017, a period marked by political turbulence and uncertainty, revealed that petitions can be a powerful tool for understanding public opinion. The study, which analysed a dataset of 10,950 petitions containing 30.5 million signatures, found that the popularity of some issues remained stable over the two years, while others were highly influenced by external events such as the EU referendum in 2016. For instance, there was a noticeable spike in signatures for a petition calling for a repeat of the EU referendum vote in May 2016 and for a petition to ban Donald Trump from the UK in November 2016.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects the right to petition the federal government for change. During President Obama's administration, the White House launched a petition website called "We the People," which committed to responding to any petition that received 100,000 signatures within 30 days. This website was shut down in 2018 and has not been relaunched since. While the website was active, it received numerous petitions, including some with unusual requests such as building a Death Star.

Overall, petitions can be a powerful tool for citizens to express their concerns and influence government policy, whether in the UK or other countries. They provide a platform for public discourse and enable governments to understand and address the issues that matter to their citizens.

The White House has responded to petitions with humour

In 2011, the Obama administration launched a petition website called "We the People", which allowed Americans to create and sign petitions on a range of issues affecting the nation. Any petition that gathered 100,000 signatures would receive a formal response from the White House. This was an increase from the previous threshold of 25,000 signatures. While the website was shut down in 2018 and hasn't been relaunched, it empowered Americans to exercise their First Amendment right to petition the government.

The White House has responded to numerous petitions with humour and wit. For instance, in response to a petition asking the government to "secure resources and funding, and begin construction of the Death Star by 2016", the White House replied, "The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn't on the horizon." They further added, "Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?"

In another instance, the White House responded to a petition regarding the classification of Antifa as a terrorist organization. While the White House acknowledged that there was no mechanism to formally designate domestic terrorist organizations, they injected humour into their response by stating, "Law enforcement has many tools at its disposal to address violent individuals and groups." This subtle humour lay in the contrast between the serious tone of addressing violent groups and the lack of a specific mechanism to designate them as such.

The White House also showed a sense of humour in their response to a petition regarding the deportation of Piers Morgan. While the exact wording of the response is not known, the petition garnered attention as it was created in response to a rival petition to keep Piers Morgan in the US because "the UK doesn't want him". This lighthearted exchange between petitioners and the White House demonstrates a playful engagement with the public.

Additionally, the White House's response to a petition on student loans showcased a blend of humour and policy agreement. While the full text of the response is unavailable, the White House announced a new policy addressing the concerns raised in the petition. They also acknowledged the impact of the petition platform, stating, "We're excited to announce a new policy that speaks to the concerns expressed in this petition." This response highlights the White House's ability to combine humour and policy agreement in their interactions with the public.

Frequently asked questions