OKLAHOMA CITY – Seated in a rare, en banc hearing, the Oklahoma Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday for and against a new state law that places additional restrictions on the initiative and referendum process.
The court held the hearing in its ceremonial courtroom on the second floor of the state Capitol building. The hearing examined a new state law contained in Senate Bill 1027.
The high court has been asked to assume original jurisdiction of the lawsuit about the bill, McVay et al. v. Cockroft and Drummond.
The hearing generated well-constructed legal arguments from both sides. At the same time, the hearing also revealed just how skeptical many justices were about the changes sparked by SB 1027.
Under the new law, the maximum number of signatures from a single county cannot exceed 11.5% of the number of votes cast in that county in the most recent gubernatorial election. For constitutional amendments, that maximum is 20.8% of votes cast.
The new law also gives authority to the secretary of state to approve or reject petition summaries and places new restrictions the on funding of initiative petition efforts.
The Tulsa World reported that the 2.3 million of the state’s registered voters live in Tulsa, Oklahoma City, or their suburbs. By limiting the number of signatures that might be gathered in urban areas, the law “would effectively exclude tens of thousands of voters in those counties from having their opinions heard.”
Randall Yates, an attorney with the Crowe and Dunleavy law firm, represents the four individuals listed in the lawsuit as ‘Oklahoma voters’ — Amy Cerato, Steven McVay, Anthony Stobbe and Kenneth Setter.
Yates argued that the new law limits free speech and voters’ rights.
'Lawmakers may not restrict or diminish the political voice of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others,” Yates said. “Is it suitable for the Legislature to (require) a modicum of support, a modest level of support, from not just a majority of voters but from voters from around the state? Is that suitable for the Legislature? Our argument is that it is very suitable,” he said.
Zach West, the director of special litigation for Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s office, argued on behalf of the state and in favor of SB 1027.
'It was imminently reasonable for the Legislature to consider this the discarding of suburban and rural Oklahomans — a major issue worth addressing with Senate Bill 1027,' West said.
West argued that the law does not prohibit campaigns from gathering more signatures than it needs, because in some cases, those signatures are unable to be verified.
That argument fell flat with Justice Douglas Combs.
“The statute creates a maximum for signature collection, correct?” Combs asked. “And part of the argument here is that it disenfranchises an individual Oklahoman from another Oklahoman, correct?”
West agreed with Combs.
“So, what you’re really saying and I think you’ve argued this in some of your briefings: it’s not that you can’t sign the initiative petition, but it doesn’t count. You count, but you don’t. How is that not disenfranchising the ‘you don’t’ person?” Combs asked.
“That’s a very fair question, your honor,” West said. “We have argued that buffer signatures are allowed. That statue says nothing about buffer signatures. One of our arguments is that would see more fluid than it seems based on their argument of no buffer signatures.”
However, it’s often unclear until signatures have gone through the process whether the signature would be used, West said.
“Our argument can be everyone can sign,” West said. “It’s very likely when you’re signing that your signature would count.”
Combs countered that it was problematic that SB 1027 cuts off signatures collected in a single county yet expects signature gatherers to create a collection of buffer signatures.
'I don't understand how the state can legitimately argue that ... you can sign it. You count. You don't,' Combs said. 'That's a problem.'
West also pushed back against arguments about the separation of powers. He said the Oklahoma Constitution requires the Legislature to enact suitable regulations to the initiative petition process.
'What could be more suitable or reasonable than a modest effort to ensure that at least some Oklahomans from across the state get to participate in initiatives at the front end, at the signature-gathering state?' West said.
Yates urged the court to assume original jurisdiction of the case. He said concerns about the current law is depriving citizens from their First Amendment rights and preventing them from participating in the governmental process.
“We should assume original juris now because delay itself is causing he harm,” he said. The uncertainty surrounding SB 1027 affects every legal Oklahoma voter or to sign their name to a petition to put an issue ballot. (It) deprives citizens the ability to debate and resolve matters of statewide of concern.”
A ruling in the case is expected soon.