State’s ballot access restrictive, contrary to Sen. Daniels’ claim
In response to M. Scott Carter’s Dec. 3, 2023, otherwise excellent piece (“Why does one legislator have a quest to protect Oklahoma’s initiative and referendum law?”), we respectfully disagree with Sen. Julie Daniels’ assertion that “it’s not as difficult to get on the ballot in Oklahoma as it is in other states.” On the contrary, our state has the nation’s most restrictive ballot access requirements. When you make an already costly process even more difficult, it allows only the big-monied interests, rather than grassroots citizen groups, to qualify.
Oklahoma’s process includes several benchmarks which separate legitimate ballot measures from unpopular or ill-conceived ones. At least seven unique obstacles must be successfully navigated before a state question can appear before voters.
Moreover, of the states that allow for initiated constitutional amendments, Oklahoma ties Arizona for the highest per capita signature requirement. Oklahoma’s 90-day signature gathering period is the nation’s shortest. Only Massachusetts has a shorter timeframe, 60 days, but that’s for indirect amendments that must also be approved by its Legislature, not an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and South Dakota allow two years to gather signatures. Ohio has no time limit.
Daniels’ Senate Bill 518 would make this process even more difficult. Some lawmakers think it’s easy to qualify ballot measures. It’s not. Furthermore, creating any supermajority requirement kills the process entirely. Oklahoma’s constitutional framers anticipated these moments — legislative aims at power consolidation — and believed the people’s rights should be preserved and protected. We believe that, too. Let’s keep direct democracy accessible to all.
— Brendan Hoover, Oklahoma City
