The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on November 10, 2026, that Senate Bill 1027, which imposed strict controls on initiative and referendum petitions, is unconstitutional. This decision affects all Oklahomans who wish to engage in the petition process, ensuring that citizens retain their rights to propose laws and amendments without excessive government restrictions.

The court found that several provisions of the law violated both the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution, declaring the entire act void and unenforceable. This ruling is significant as it upholds the fundamental rights of Oklahomans to participate in the democratic process through initiatives and referendums.

Background

The case, McVAY et al. v. LEPAK and DRUMMOND, was brought by a group of petitioners, including Steven Craig McVay, Amy Cerato, Kenneth Ray Setter, and Anthony Stobbe, who challenged the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1027. The petitioners argued that the law introduced burdensome requirements that made it prohibitively expensive for citizens to engage in the petition process.

Senate Bill 1027, effective May 23, 2025, included provisions such as requiring petition circulators to be registered voters in Oklahoma, imposing caps on the number of signatures that could be collected from specific counties, and adding stringent disclosure requirements for campaign contributions. The petitioners contended that these changes violated their rights to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction of the case on November 18, 2025, after the petitioners filed their application for declaratory relief. The court's decision came after hearing oral arguments from both sides.

The Ruling

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that several key sections of Senate Bill 1027 violate the Oklahoma Constitution and are legally void. The court stated, "We conclude the unconstitutional provisions of the Act are not severable, and the Act as a whole is deemed unconstitutional." The ruling emphasized that the right to petition is a fundamental aspect of democracy that must be preserved.

The court's decision highlighted that the law's requirement for petition circulators to be registered voters infringed upon First Amendment rights, as established in previous Supreme Court rulings. The court noted, "The circulation of an initiative petition... necessarily constitutes 'core political speech,' for which First Amendment protection is at its zenith." This ruling reinforces the idea that any legislation restricting the initiative process must be closely scrutinized.

Impact

The ruling has significant implications for the political landscape in Oklahoma. By striking down Senate Bill 1027, the court has reaffirmed the rights of citizens to engage in the initiative and referendum process without unnecessary governmental barriers. This decision may encourage more Oklahomans to participate in political advocacy and propose new laws or amendments.

The court's decision also sets a precedent for future legislation regarding initiative petitions. It underscores the importance of protecting core political speech and the rights of citizens to engage in the democratic process. This ruling could deter lawmakers from enacting similar restrictive measures in the future, knowing that they may face legal challenges.

What's Next

Following the court's ruling, there is the possibility of an appeal, although details were not available in the court filing. Additionally, a related case is pending that challenges the retroactivity clause of Senate Bill 1027, particularly its application to pending State Question 836. The outcome of these proceedings may further shape the legal landscape surrounding initiative petitions in Oklahoma.