Supreme Court of Oklahoma to Hear Legal Challenge to Senate Bill 1027, Which Was Passed Earlier This Year to Make Initiative Petitioning More DIfficult

Posted on by October 5, 2025
20

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:

Oklahoma Senate Bill 1027 made significant changes to the state’s initiative and referendum process, making it harder for citizens to get state questions on the ballot. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt in May 2025, the bill includes new rules for signature gathering and funding disclosure. The new law faces a legal challenge over its constitutionality. 
The key provisions of Oklahoma Senate Bill 1027 include:
  • 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. 
Impacts and perspectives
The changes introduced by SB 1027 have been met with both support and criticism:
  • 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. 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Agrees with Lower Courts that a Voter May Vote Provisionally if Original Ballot was Defective

Posted on by September 30, 2025
30

On September 26, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with lower courts that when a voter’s original postal ballot is not counted due to the voter having forgotten to put the date on the outer envelope, that voter must be notified and given a chance to cast a provisional ballot. Center for Coalfield Justice v Washington County Board of Elections, 28 WAP 2024.

Here is the majority opinion. The vote was 4-3. The decision is based on the state constitution, which says elections shall be free and equal.

Democratic National Committee Files Brief in U.S. Supreme Court in Defense of Federal Campaign Law Limits on Parties

Posted on by September 29, 2025
4

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.

National Conference of Black Lawyers, and National Lawyers Guild, File Brief in Defense of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Posted on by September 29, 2025
2

On September 29, the National Conference of Black Lawyers, and the National Lawyers Guild, filed this amicus brief in Louisiana v Callais, 24-109. It defends section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, relying heavily on history. Louisiana v Callais is a fight over Louisiana U.S. House redistricting.