SB 1027 reshapes Oklahoma’s petition process, faces legal battle

By Jayson Knight, Centraloklahomaweeklies.com

A new law designed to overhaul Oklahoma’s initiative-petition process is drawing praise from state leaders and those in favor of rural representation and state policies influenced primarily by Oklahomans. Some voting-rights advocates have decided to fight Senate Bill 1027, with its fate now in the hands of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. SB 1027, passed during the 2025 legislative session and signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, introduces changes to how citizen-led ballot initiatives can qualify for a statewide vote.

Supporters say it brings fairness, transparency, and rural representation to a process long dominated by well-funded urban interests.

Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, who helped guide the bill through the Senate as one of its authors, says the legislation protects both the process and the public. “SB 1027 simply reduces the ability of outside interest groups to game the initiative-petition process while ignoring voters across nearly all of Oklahoma,” Paxton said. “Too many times recently we have had well-funded, out-of-state interest groups come into the state, dump millions into a state question, focus on Oklahoma City and Tulsa for signatures, get a question on the ballot, and have it pass without the majority of Oklahomans knowing what they are voting on.”

Opponents argue it imposes unconstitutional restrictions that could block meaningful policy proposals from ever reaching voters.

The most debated provisions of SB 1027 include limits on how many petition signatures can come from a single county: 11.5% for statutory initiatives and 20.8% for constitutional changes. The law also requires all signature gatherers to be registered Oklahoma voters, bans pay-per-signature compensation, and mandates public disclosure of petition funding. Those funding reports must be filed weekly during circulation and include an attestation that all donated funds used for circulation came from sources within Oklahoma.

SB 1027 focuses on tightening the process, not adding new crimes. It doesn’t create new criminal penalties; enforcement is mainly through signature validity and administrative processes. (Petition sheets continue to carry the long-standing felony warning against fraudulent signing.) Signature collectors will likely function more like advocates than salesmen, recruited by policy rather than a paycheck. Cities will not make statewide changes without at least some support from rural Oklahoma, and voters will see who is investing in these laws before they go to the ballot.

Additionally, SB 1027 requires each petition to include a plain-language “gist” that notes any fiscal impact and potential funding sources. The Secretary of State must affirm that a petition’s gist meets these standards and can require a corrected gist if it does not. Separate from the gist, the Attorney General reviews ballot titles for legal correctness. The law also requires that anyone who signs a petition either read the full gist or have it read to them, and it creates a process for voters to ask that their signatures be removed.

A key point of contention is the law’s application to ongoing initiatives, including State Question 836, a proposal to establish open primaries in Oklahoma. Under SB 1027, the new rules apply to initiatives unless the Secretary of State had already set a circulation start date. Critics say using the new rules to reach back to existing efforts violates the state constitution.

Two lawsuits challenging SB 1027 are currently under review by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. One, filed by SQ 836 organizers and supporters, argues that the new rules create an unconstitutional burden by drastically limiting the available signature pool and undermining free speech. The other, filed by two Oklahoma veterans, centers on retroactivity, claiming the law illegally derails a petition effort already underway.

Opponents of SB 1027 say the law will silence urban voters, but supporters counter that Oklahoma City and Tulsa have long dominated signature collection. With 77 counties statewide, relying on just two population centers risks leaving most of the state out of the conversation. Supporters frame the law as a necessary guardrail to prevent outside influence and deceptive campaigning.

Senator David Bullard, who co-authored the bill and serves as Majority Caucus Vice-Chair, asked during Senate floor debate, “How can you guarantee a republican form of government when you uphold a status quo system that allows you to ignore 97.5% of your state?” That figure reflects the concern that two out of 77 counties can drive statewide changes while leaving the other 97-plus percent of counties without meaningful input.

“This means individuals collecting signatures will have to go into the rural areas of the state to collect signatures, to give all Oklahomans a voice in the process,” Paxton said. “This legislation requires that those gathering signatures must be Oklahoma registered voters, and signature gatherers must publicly reveal if they are being paid by outside entities to circulate a petition and identify their funders. This will give more Oklahomans a voice in the initiative petition process. The law requires that a petition inform voters of a proposal’s fiscal impact, which could require either tax increases or the diversion of funds from other uses. The law also requires that those who sign a petition must first read the full [gist] for the proposed measure.”

The Oklahoma Supreme Court heard oral arguments on June 24, 2025, and justices appeared divided on whether the challenge is premature or ripe for review. A decision could come later this fall and will likely set new precedent for how the state balances the initiative process.

For now, State Question 836 remains in limbo, currently scheduled to be voted on by the people in November 2026. Depending on how the court rules, SB 1027 could reshape how Oklahomans interact with their government for years to come.

Editor’s Note: If passed, SQ 836 would let independents vote in primaries, which right now are mostly limited to party members. This would give moderate or lesser-known candidates a better chance to dilute the dominance of the GOP primary. From a strategic standpoint, Democrats absolutely see this as a way to attract more centrist or independent voters and create wedge issues inside GOP primaries. Oklahoma Democrats routinely fail to put forth candidates that can defeat a GOP primary winner in most places, so they’re hoping Republicans defeat each other. In my opinion, that will backfire anyway. Many independents in Oklahoma lean libertarian, or some other fiscally conservative direction. Opening the primaries might produce more Bernie-like Democrats, but it might also bring more Ron Paul-style Republicans to the surface who will be even less aligned with progressive agendas.