Lawsuits filed after drastic changes to initiative petition process
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – Two lawsuits were filed after drastic changes were made by lawmakers to the initiative petition process in Oklahoma.
'I think they took the idea of direct democracy away from everyday rural Oklahomans, and it offended me,' said Craig McVay, a rural Oklahoma voter.
McVay is listed as a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits. He is one of many who joined in on the lawsuit.
Senate Bill 1027 went into effect at the end of the legislative session. It was authored by State Sen. David Bullard (R-Durant) and prevents more than 10% of required signatures from coming from Oklahoma or Tulsa counties.
Stitt signs bill limiting Oklahomans' access to support ballot initiative petitions
Meanwhile, each of the state's 75 other counties, most of which are rural, are capped at 4% of total signatures.
The lawsuit was filed as McVay et al. v. Cockroft and Drummond and challenges SB 1027's constitutionality.
Supporters of SB 1027 have long argued that the reason it was needed was to give rural Oklahomans more of a voice when it came to signature gathering.
'I've checked a box in every rural part of the state and have been a part of the process the entire time. Now I feel like the legislature just took a swipe at me, and I don't like that,' said McVay.
'I can't imagine having to try to defend this law. It, quite frankly, is indefensible,' said Amber England of Strategy 77.
England has led the way for many initiative petitions over the years and fought at the Capitol when SB 1027 was being discussed by lawmakers.
'We hope the court acts quickly to throw this out so that there's no longer uncertainty,' said England.
According to Strategy 77, key constitutional arguments in the lawsuit include:
County-Based Signature Caps: Senate Bill 1027 limits how many signatures can be collected in each county, violating Article V, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause by creating arbitrary distinctions among voters.
Gist Language Approval: The law gives the Secretary of State, an unelected, politically appointed position, unchecked authority to approve or reject petition summaries, violating the separation of powers and placing unconstitutional restraints on free speech.
Circulation and Funding Restrictions: Senate Bill 1027 mandates circulation and funding restrictions that courts have repeatedly struck down as violations of the First Amendment.
Special Laws and Unequal Treatment: The law singles out initiative and referendum proponents for restrictions not imposed on candidates, opponents, or other political campaigns.
'It takes away power from Oklahoma voters. And I hope that the court will understand that and see that for what it is,' said England.
On that lawsuit, Attorney General Gentner Drummond and Secretary of State Josh Cockroft are listed.
The other lawsuit filed was brought on by supporters of State Question 836. They said that they are challenging the retroactive application of Senate Bill 1027.
In their press release, they said that SQ 836 would establish an open primary system in Oklahoma, allowing all voters, regardless of party, to vote in primary elections. The measure was filed in January of 2025 and is currently pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
News 4 reached out to the AG's office and the Secretary of State's Office Friday and have not heard back yet.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Keir Starmer announces statutory inquiry into grooming gangs scandal
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced that there will be a statutory inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal. This comes after recommendations from a government-comissioned report by Baroness Louise Casey. He told reporters today (Saturday, June 14) that he had read 'every single word' of the report and accepted the recommendation for an inquiry. Keir Starmer said: 'From the start I have always said that we should implement the recommendations we have got because we have got many other recommendations… I think there are 200 when you take all of the reviews that have gone on at every level and we have got to get on with implementing them. The PM shared the news on Saturday (Image: Stefan Rousseau/PA) 'I have never said we should not look again at any issue. That's why I asked Louise Casey who I hugely respect to do an audit. 'Her position when she started the audit was that there was not a real need for a national inquiry over and above what was going on. She has looked at the material she has looked at and she has come to the view that there should be a national inquiry on the basis of what she has seen. 'I have read every single word of her report and I am going to accept her recommendation. 'That is the right thing to do on the basis of what she has put in her audit. I asked her to do that job to double check on this; she has done that job for me and having read her report, I respect her in any event. I shall now implement her recommendations.'
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
PM announces inquiry into grooming gangs after resisting calls for probe
Sir Keir Starmer will launch a statutory inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal after resisting calls for months to implement a full national probe. The Prime Minister said he had read 'every single word' of an independent report into child sexual exploitation by Baroness Louise Casey and would accept her recommendation for the investigation. The Government has for months held off launching a statutory probe, saying its focus was on implementing the outstanding recommendations already made in a seven-year national inquiry by Professor Alexis Jay, which found institutional failings and tens of thousands of victims across England and Wales. But speaking to reporters travelling with him on his visit to Canada, the Prime Minister said: 'From the start I have always said that we should implement the recommendations we have got because we have got many other recommendations… I think there are 200 when you take all of the reviews that have gone on at every level and we have got to get on with implementing them.'
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Five key points for London from Spending Review
It is no secret that the mayor of London was not pleased with what was - or rather, what was not - in the government's recent Spending Review. Sadiq Khan's wish list, including money for new transport infrastructure projects, was surrounded by tumbleweed. An increase in police funding - unlikely to fill the Met's budget black hole - offered cold comfort, and there were slim pickings for council finances. The government would disagree with his outlook, pointing to investment in affordable homes, free school meals and the NHS. So let's take a closer look at the offerings for the capital. Transport Transport for London (TfL) is getting a four-year spending settlement of £2.2bn. It's a big deal because in recent years, not knowing how much government funding it would be getting beyond the next year TfL has struggled to plan ahead. TfL commissioner Andy Lord said having four years of cash guaranteed meant TfL could now complete the introduction of new trains on the Piccadilly line and Docklands Light Railway (DLR), and new signalling on 40% of the Tube. He said it can now procure a new tram fleet, progress discussions on new Bakerloo line trains and can get to work on renewing some of London's critical roads, tunnels and flyovers. Infrastructure In bad news for City Hall, no cash was allocated for the new transport infrastructure projects Sir Sadiq had been pinning his hopes on. These included the DLR extension to Thamesmead, the Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham and the West London Orbital between Hendon and Hounslow. This spending review was about the government's priorities and it was clear new London-based transport projects were not on that priority list. Instead, it pointed at old infrastructure announcements we already knew about -Heathrow expansion and HS2 to Euston. I asked the mayor's team whether it was an anti-London spending review. The answer was unequivocal: "Yes it is". However, an olive branch to City Hall was offered in a Treasury document, which said "the potential growth and housing benefits" of the DLR extension was recognised, and that the government "is committed to working with TfL to explore options for delivery". Sir Sadiq, who spent the run-up to last year's General Election telling journalists a Labour government working with a Labour mayor would mean London would get what it needs, was clearly not pleased. In the statement, he said it was "disappointing" there was no commitment to invest in the new infrastructure. He warned that without such investment, it will be unable to build "the new affordable homes that Londoners need". Housing The good news on housing was the £39bn for affordable homes over 10 years, which has been welcomed by the G15 group of the capital's leading housing associations. Chair, Ian McDermott - who is also the chief executive of the Peabody housing association - said it was clear ministers understood the issues. "In London the challenge remains considerable, but this settlement offers a real opportunity to turn the tide." Antonia Jennings, chief executive at the Centre for London thinktank, agreed it will bring more certainty to home builders, although did specify "the devil is in the detail". That brings us to the not-so-pretty side of this £39bn funding - we do not yet know what proportion of the funding will actually come to London. Ms Jennings warned a 10-year plan does not help Londoners today who are struggling to find affordable homes. She added that it would have been "very helpful to see… an uplift to the Local Housing Allowance" to help private renters. The Spending Review did include £950m to help councils pay for what the government described as "good-quality temporary accommodation" instead of "costly bed-and-breakfasts and hotels". London's boroughs have welcomed that, but again, it is not clear how much will come to London. London's councils now collectively spend £4 million a day on temporary accommodation to house homeless Londoners, and it is unclear if this sum would make much of a dent in that. Policing Yes, the chancellor did announce an increase of 2.3% for policing, but - and it is a huge but - the Metropolitan Police is facing a black hole in its funding of £260m this year. Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, warned of potential cuts to officer numbers and said they might be forced to choose which crimes the Met can afford to focus on. So is a 2.3% increase enough? The mayor of London thinks not. The statement he issued to us read: "I remain concerned that this Spending Review could result in insufficient funding for the Met and fewer police officers." In response, the chancellor Rachel Reeves told the BBC: "I really don't accept that there need to be cuts when we're increasing the money the police force gets." Clearly all is not harmonious between London's Labour mayor and the Labour government on this issue. Local government Put simply, London boroughs wanted more. The Treasury did announced an increase of around 3.1% per year in local authority core spending power, but London Councils has been warning it expects a collective funding gap of £500m this year. Chair of the group, Claire Holland, who also leads Lambeth Council, said boroughs' finances remain "extremely difficult" and the funding "will remain very tight." She said the critical issue going forward would be whether the government includes the cost of housing in how it decides the funding formula that determines the proportion of money each council receives. Pointing to research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that suggested London local government funding was 17% lower than its relative need, Holland said the distribution of funds "can be make or break for us in London". She added it was "vital" a new funding formula is implemented, that matches resource to need. Then there is council tax. Treasury documents for the spending review suggest council tax is expected to rise by 5% a year to pay for local services and that bills are also expected to rise further to pay for an increase in police funding. In London that has already been happening for years. Most councils here raised their council tax by the maximum 5% allowed this year and the mayor has, for several years, raised the council tax precept (the amount the Greater London Authority adds to your council tax bill) to provide more funding for the Met Police. Londoners can probably expect that trend to continue. From next year London will get an integrated settlement, bringing it in line with how funding works for combined authorities in some other parts of the country. So instead of the Greater London Authority getting different pots of cash from central government for, for example, housing or policing, which has to be spent on those areas, the mayor will get one budget pot and the GLA will decide how to spend it. Winners and losers: Who got what in the spending review? Why London councils want more Spending Review cash Could this be London's property hotspot in 2040? Leaks and crumbling ceilings: Met says half its buildings face closure
