All,
We urge you to call your House Representative and politely ask them to vote “NO” on SB 1027. This bill poses a serious threat to Oklahoma’s citizen-led initiative process.
Why Oppose SB 1027?
SB 1027 would severely weaken the ability of citizens to propose and pass ballot initiatives by introducing the following harmful changes:
- Geographic Signature Caps (Page 8 lines 14-24, and page 9 lines 1-3)
- What it does: Limits the number of signatures that can come from a single county (11.5% for statutes, 20.8% for constitutional amendments).
- Impact: Disproportionately impacts urban areas with high populations (e.g., Oklahoma County and Tulsa County). These counties often provide the majority of signatures for successful initiatives.
- Why it’s harmful:
- It dilutes the influence of voters in populous areas and forces petitioners to collect signatures from many rural counties making the process more logistically and financially burdensome.
- It disenfranchises the remaining voters in populous areas once the signature threshold is reached.
- Residency and Disclosure Requirements for Circulators (Page 3, lines 23-24, page 4, lines 1-24, page 5, lines 1-2 and page 7, lines 22-24, page 8, lines 1-13)
- What it does:
- Requires circulators to be registered Oklahoma voters.
- Bans non-Oklahoma residents and out-of-state organizations from funding or compensating petition circulators.
- Mandates WEEKLY financial reporting of all expenditures and donors.
- Impact: Severely limits who can assist with petitions and where support can come from.
- Why it’s harmful: Increases costs, discourages participation, and prevents national issue advocacy groups from helping Oklahoma citizens, which isolates the state and stifles grassroots efforts. (Right-to-Work and the Term Limits ballot initiatives were both funded by out-of-state advocacy groups.)
- What it does:
- Content Restrictions on the Petition Gist (Page 2, lines 4-24, page 3, lines 1-22)
- What it does: Sets rigid language requirements for the “gist” (summary) of the petition.
- Impact: The Secretary of State can reject a petition if the gist includes technical terms, “code words,” or anything THEY INTERPRET as partial.
- Why it’s harmful: These vague standards give the Secretary broad discretionary power to reject petitions arbitrarily or for political reasons, delaying or killing efforts before they reach voters.
- Added Public Disclosure of Signers (Page 3, lines 14-17)
- What it does: Requires a statement notifying that all signatures are public records under the Open Records Act.
- Impact: May deter individuals from signing petitions out of privacy concerns or fear of backlash.
- Why it’s harmful: It could chill participation, especially on controversial or polarizing measures.
- New Signature Removal Procedures (Page 7, lines 10-12)
- What it does: Allows voters to retract their signatures and requires the Secretary of State to create a system for doing so.
- Impact: Increases the administrative burden on petitioners and opens the door to organized efforts to invalidate signatures post-collection.
- Why it’s harmful: This can be exploited to undermine legitimate petitions after they’ve already gained sufficient public support.
- No Signature-Based Pay for Circulators (Page 7, lines 22-24, page 8, lines 1-7)
- What it does: Bans paying circulators per signature.
- Impact: Makes it more expensive and difficult to hire help, especially for low-budget, citizen-led campaigns.
- Why it’s harmful: Reduces the pool of available workers and increases campaign costs, favoring only well-funded groups.
- Additional Bureaucratic Hurdles (Page 3, lines 23-24, page 4, lines 1-24, page 5, lines 1-2, page 6, lines 1-12, Page 7, lines 22-24, Page 8, lines 1-13)
- Examples:
- More stringent affidavit and notarization rules for circulators.
- Public posting of financial reports and contributions.
- Short window (15-30 days) before the 90-day signature period begins after legal challenges are resolved.
- Why it’s harmful: Cumulatively, these measures increase complexity, cost, and legal risk, pushing the process out of reach for average citizens.
- Examples:
- Conclusion: SB 1027 erects numerous legal, procedural, and logistical barriers to the initiative process, which:
- Limits the input that citizens have on state policy.
- Makes it nearly impossible for grassroots groups without substantial funding to succeed;
- Shifts control from the people to state officials with discretionary enforcement power.
Lawmakers frame these changes as efforts to improve transparency and security, but they are deliberately designed to suppress public participation in the ballot initiative process and limit citizens’ ability to shape state policy.
