On September 7, a U.S. District Court Judge in Oklahoma had upheld the law making it a crime for an out-of-stater to circulate an initiative petition in Oklahoma. The case is being appealed to the 10th circuit. The case is Yes on Term Limits v Savage. The appeal notice will be filed on September 28.
Hidden Controls Over the Citizens Choices in Elections
Because national and state elections have been unified in time for so long and because the states do have concurrent jurisdiction with the Congress to administer elections, the constitutionality of many elections practices have gone unchallenged. This negligence has allowed partisans to entrench themselves in power by manipulating election rules to their advantage and suppressing voter sovereignty.
The question I raise here is this: Can a State using its authority to police the initiative petition process (on an issue which affects only State government – term limits- tailor that police power so broadly as to also restrict access the initiative on an issue which affects the rights of U.S. citizens to vote for national offices (Congress and President)?
The question directly implicates the principle of federalism in the American system of dual, and sometimes dueling, governments.
In reading, Judge Leonard’s decision in Yes on Term Limits v Savage, it is clear that this question could not be raised. However, there is another initiative petition in circulation sponsored by a coalition of parties seeking the restore the rule which bars access to the ballot to requiring only 5,000 signatures – the standard used from 1924 to 1974.
YOTL v Savage may not apply to the ballot access initiative.
See: http://some-savvy-sooner.blogspot.com/