Case Summary
LWVOK filed an amicus brief arguing that the Oklahoma legislature’s new disclosure requirements and ban on performance-based compensation for collecting signatures for ballot initiatives violates freedom and privacy of association rights under the First Amendment and places an unjustifiable burden on core political speech.
Article 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution, adopted in 1907, guarantees that the people of Oklahoma may propose laws and constitutional amendments and vote to enact or reject such measures. To propose a new law or amendment via a ballot initiative or hold a referendum to approve or reject an existing law in Oklahoma, citizens must follow an exacting process. Proponents must propose a new initiative or amendment and ballot title to the secretary of state, which is subject to protest adjudicated by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. If the proposal survives any challenges, signatures from registered voters in Oklahoma must be gathered. The Oklahoma Constitution requires that constitutional amendments and initiatives require valid signatures equivalent to 15% and 8% of the votes cast for governor in the last general elections, respectively. Assuming sufficient signatures are gathered, the secretary of state must submit a proposed title for the initiative or amendment to the attorney general for review. If approved, the state supreme court is then presented with a report by the secretary of state for review, and objections may be filed at this point. If the initiative or amendment survives any challenges, the voters vote on the amendment or initiative.
A fuller explanation of the ballot initiative process may be found here.
Between 2000 and 2025, 11 out of 86 citizen initiatives in Oklahoma made it to an election, and only five went on to receive a majority vote. To address concerns about fraud and corruption in the process, the Oklahoma Legislature has required prominent warning language be printed on the petitions themselves and mandated petition circulators to verify the signature pages. Instances of fraud or corruption in this process are subject to prosecution by the Oklahoma Attorney General.
In addition to these existing laws, the Oklahoma Legislature passed SB 1027, which the governor signed into law on May 23, 2025. SB 1027 places new restrictions on the number of signatures that can be collected from a single county. Alongside the cap on the number of signatures, SB 1027 further mandates that petition signers must be able to remove their names, even after the 90-day window to gather signatures concludes.
SB 1027 also introduces new regulations for gathering signatures and funding these efforts. Non-citizens are prohibited from circulating petitions, and paid circulators’ compensation cannot be performance-based. Circulators must also create and display notices showing whether they are being paid, and if so, by whom. Those donating to or funding the costly circulation efforts must be an Oklahoma resident or a registered business in the state. Individuals or entities expending any funds on petition circulation must also submit weekly reports detailing expenditures to the Oklahoma Secretary of State, which are then published on the secretary of state’s website until the election occurs. SB 1027 also grants unilateral authority to the secretary of state to reject or remove proponents’ “gist” statements from petitions on subjective grounds and further requires a “fiscal impact statement” for the proposed measure in the gist, without providing any guidance on determining the fiscal impact. SB 1027 took effect immediately and purported to apply retroactively to measures already in process.
On June 12, 2025, a group of Oklahoma voters who were involved in ballot measure efforts or supported past measures filed a lawsuit in the Oklahoma Supreme Court. They argued that SB 1027 imposed an undue burden on the state’s constitutional right to initiative, and that the county-based signature caps, circulation, compensation, and funding restrictions were unconstitutional, as was the grant of authority to the secretary of state to reject gist statements. The petitioners asserted these provisions effectively abolished ballot initiatives in the state. The petitioners requested that the court assume original jurisdiction, declare SB 1027 unconstitutional in its entirety, and prohibit its enforcement. The petitioners also moved for a preliminary injunction to block the state from enforcing SB 1027.
On June 30, 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted emergency relief, pending the outcome of a challenge to a ballot initiative seeking to move Oklahoma to an open primary system in Oklahoma Republican Party v. Setter.
On July 7, 2025, the League of Women Voters of Oklahoma (LWVOK) filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioners, arguing that disclosure requirements in SB 1027 violated First Amendment protections of freedom and privacy of association rights. The brief also argued that the provision banning performance-based compensation placed an unjustifiable burden on core political speech because it was not written to properly fulfill any legitimate state interest.
LWVOK was represented in this case by GableGotwals.
LWV Timeline
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signs SB 1027 into law
On May 23, 2025, Oklahoma’s governor signs SB 1027 into law, which places new restrictions on the state’s ballot initiative and referendum process, setting county-level petition signature caps, introducing new funding and reporting requirements for petition sponsors, and granting the Oklahoma Secretary of State broader power to reject petition materials. The new rules go into effect immediately and purport to apply to ballot initiative efforts already underway.
Oklahoma voters file challenge to SB 1027
A group of Oklahoma voters involved in ballot initiative efforts file a lawsuit in the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging the new law’s constitutionality. The petitioners request the court to directly hear the case due to the novel and important constitutional questions and need for prompt resolution. The petitioners also move the court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking SB 1027.
Oklahoma Supreme Court issues order pausing consideration of case
The Oklahoma Supreme Court places consideration of the petitioners' motion on hold, pending the outcome of a related challenge to a ballot initiative that seeks to move Oklahoma to an open primary system.
LWVOK is granted permission to file an amicus brief
LWVOK moves for and is granted permission to file an amicus brief in support of the petitioners.
LWVOK files amicus brief
LWVOK files an amicus brief, arguing that the disclosure requirements in SB 1027 violate First Amendment protections of freedom and privacy of association rights because the provisions are not narrowly tailored to any compelling state interest and unduly burdens on these rights. LWVOK also argues that the provision banning performance-based compensation unjustly burdens core political speech because it also is not sufficiently tailored to any legitimate state interest.
Respondents file response to LWVOK amicus brief
Oklahoma files its response to LWVOK’s amicus brief, arguing in favor of the constitutionality of disclosure and performance-based compensation regulations.
Oklahoma Supreme Court
The Oklahoma Supreme Court grants the petitioners' request to directly take the case without going through the lower courts first.