Concerns with SB 1027
Why SB 1027 Is a Threat to Oklahoma’s Citizen-Led Democracy
Oklahoma is one of the few states in the nation with a citizen-led initiative petition process—also known as a referendum. Some people support this process; others don’t. And those who don’t? They often want to control it or eliminate it altogether.
I can’t speak for the true intentions of SB 1027's authors or backers, but we can judge the bill by its language and legislative history.
Based on that, it's clear this proposal could undermine the ability of everyday Oklahomans to exercise their constitutional rights to free speech and petition.
A Solution in Search of a Problem
SB 1027 claims to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. The alleged issue? That the wording of certain ballot measures might be confusing. The solution? To give more power to the Secretary of State—a political appointee—at the expense of the people.
Under current law, the process for circulating a statewide petition is straightforward. Citizens submit their petitions to the Secretary of State. They then have 90 days to collect signatures. Once submitted, the Secretary of State verifies those signatures. From there, the Attorney General writes the official ballot language, and the Governor sets an election date.
In my 40-plus years in politics, I’ve heard occasional complaints about the clarity of the Attorney General’s ballot descriptions. But SB 1027 doesn’t address that part of the process. It bypasses the AG entirely and instead grants new powers to the Secretary of State—without defining them.
What's Really Going On?
That’s where it gets challenging. With legislation like this, it’s often hard to discern true intent. Again, I don’t claim to know exactly what’s motivating this bill, but its language certainly seems to weaken current protections for citizen petitions and chip away at First Amendment rights.
If the goal is to help voters better understand ballot measures, there are better solutions. For example, the Secretary of State or the State Election Board could publish plain-language explanations with pros and cons on their website—offering voters a vetted, nonpartisan breakdown of each proposed law.
Instead, SB 1027 raises several troubling questions:
Could a future Secretary of State delay or block a petition effort by repeatedly rejecting the language as "unclear"?
Could this lead to increased legal costs for grassroots organizers?
Why does the bill contain no definitions or standards to guide the Secretary of State in exercising this new authority?
Who actually wrote this bill—staffers, lobbyists, consultants?
Where's the Public Outcry?
I ask this question again—Is this bill even necessary? I haven’t seen a groundswell of public concern demanding this change, but I do know there are those who dislike Oklahoma’s citizen petition process—those who would prefer to limit the people’s power to propose laws when government fails to act.
Oklahoma’s initiative process is rare and powerful. I’ve spoken with legislators from other states who envy it. They often tell me their lawmaking is dominated by special interests and big money. Our political system protects individual liberty—this bill would diminish it.
A False Label
Just last week, I visited the Capitol to speak with lawmakers about SB 1027. I discovered something surprising: Oklahomans for Life, a pro-life lobbying group, had sent emails to legislators claiming SB 1027 is a "pro-life bill." But the bill has nothing to do with abortion. Is this a case of fearmongering? A tactic to pressure lawmakers into siding with leadership? Or both?
A Bigger Battle
I recently helped launch Open Government Initiative Inc., a group working to place a measure on the ballot that would prohibit Legislative leadership from unconstitutionally blocking bills by refusing to give them a hearing. Are special interest groups and large donors influencing these kinds of decisions? Could this be why they want to make the petition process more difficult to the point of obstruction?
The Bottom Line
SB 1027 must be defeated. It is not needed. It would turn a grassroots, citizen-led process into a top-down, bureaucratic one. We should strengthen the people’s voice, not silence it.
Contact: Charles Key cell/txt 405.787.9333 opengovernmentok.com