The lawsuit will be heard in the Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 18, 2025. Here is a link to a story with a video interview of Oklahoma political consultant Amber England.

Here is a Google AI summary of Senate Bill 1027:

• Signature distribution requirements: The bill caps the number of signatures that can come from any single county. Signatures from any one county cannot exceed 10% of the total number of valid signatures required statewide.
• Residency requirement for signature gatherers: Only Oklahoma residents who are also registered Oklahoma voters are allowed to collect signatures for initiative petitions.
• Prohibition on pay-per-signature: The bill prohibits paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures they collect. Collectors must disclose if they are being paid.
• Funding disclosure rules: New rules require greater transparency regarding the funding of initiative petition campaigns. 

• Supporters: Proponents of the bill, including the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, argue that it adds “sensible guardrails” to the ballot initiative process. They claim the law promotes geographic diversity in signature gathering by requiring broader support across the state, rather than allowing proponents to focus only on heavily populated areas.
• Opponents: Critics, including the Oklahoma Policy Institute, contend the new rules make it nearly impossible for grassroots campaigns to succeed. They argue that the cap on signatures from larger counties, combined with the new residency and payment rules, disproportionately restricts the rights of voters in metropolitan areas. Some also argue that similar measures have previously been struck down by courts and that the bill is an attack on democratic processes. 

On September 29, the Democratic National Committee filed this brief in National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission, 24-621. The brief argues in favor of the law that limits how much money parties can spend on behalf of their own appointees, when there is coordination between the candidate and the party.

On September 25, Michael Bost filed his Reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Bost v Illinois State Board of Elections, 24-568. This is the last brief before the case is argued on October 8. This is a rare election law case, because the ACLU, the Republican Party, and the U.S. government are all on the same side, the side that argues in favor of standing.