Oklahoma lawmakers are once again bravely standing up to the biggest threat facing our state — the Oklahoma people.
As we mentioned back in February, Oklahoma’s usurper Republicans are working overtime this spring to pass Senate Bill 1027 – a draconian law that will wrestle power and control away from the public and block their constitutionally protected ability to overcome legislative incompetence and one-party rule through ballot initiatives.
Unlike past efforts to strip power from Oklahoma voters and severely limit their ability to govern themselves in any effective or pragmatic way, this one actually seems to have decaying rural Oklahoma teeth.
It’s backed by both Senate and House leadership, including Speaker Kyle Hilbert, Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, and a host of other low-IQ conservative mouth breathers like State Senator David Bullard, the genius who claims 69% of abortions are conducted without consent.
Just like in previous years, the primary motivation behind this latest authoritarian, anti-democratic, “We know what’s best for you” GOP power move is simple: prevent popular, broadly supported reforms that are coming down the political pipeline — like reproductive freedom, ranked choice voting, and big box store retail liquor sales — from ever reaching a vote of the people.
But since they can’t come out and just say that directly, they have to spin up a bunch of weak, borderline comical talking points and then pitch them to the public.
For example, Mouthbreather Bullard wrote an editorial claiming the main reason for the bill is his desire to protect Okahomans from a popular political boogeyman — outside influences.
OPINION: Initiative petition reform needed to protect Oklahoma from outside influences
Oklahoma’s initiative petition process was designed to empower the people, allowing residents to bypass the Legislature when lawmakers fail to act in the public’s best interest. Unfortunately, what was once a tool for direct democracy by Oklahomans and for Oklahomans has increasingly been manipulated by out-of-state interest groups and wealthy donors to push left-wing policies in a deeply conservative state. We’re now hearing that the groups that poured money and external resources into campaigns to legalize marijuana, expand Medicaid and push soft-on-crime policies are now among those strategizing on how to legalize abortion on demand through the ballot box and force blanket primaries on our parties…
When outside organizations exploit the system to push policies that don’t reflect our values, it ceases to be a true representation of the people. The integrity of the process is compromised when those pushing for change don’t live in our communities and can force through reforms that don’t affect them.
Yep, that’s right. We need to protect the Oklahoma people from those outside interests who don’t live in our communities and use money and influence to force through reforms that don’t affect them.
You know, like all those “outside interests” who have donated over $57,751.32 to Speaker Kyle Hilbert’s campaigns over the past year or so:
Or the outside groups that donated $57,401.32 to Speaker Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton’s campaigns:
Or even the desperate ones that gave $8,500 to the old Mouthbreather:
Yes, I agree. Let’s get money and outside influence out of Oklahoma politics… and begin by banning outside groups from donating to Oklahoma politicians.
Who wants to get the citizen petition started?
Blocking outside influence isn’t the only reason our fascists-in-training lawmakers want to take power away from the people.
They also want to put “guardrails” on the process to make things more fair for the 37% of Oklahomans who freely and voluntarily live in remote rural counties by limiting how many signatures can be collected from large counties.
Via a press release:
Senate Bill 1027 gives a broad cross-section of Oklahomans a voice in what qualifies for the ballot by establishing that no more than 10% of the total number of initiative petition signatures come from any one county with more than 400,000 residents. In addition, no more than 4% of signatures shall come from any one county with less than 400,000 residents.
Uhm, who in the world came up with those arbitrary numbers? Did they consult experts in authoritarianism, or did someone just pull the formula out of the same place they keep their stats about abortion consent?
Seriously — 10% here, 4% there… why not 7.69% from counties shaped like a boot?
In his editorial, here’s how Mouthbreather rationalized the aribtrary limits:
For too long, initiative petition campaigns have visited a limited number of Oklahoma’s 77 counties — sometimes only collecting signatures in Oklahoma City and Tulsa to place a question on the ballot. This has allowed national, leftist groups to bypass the majority of Oklahomans, especially those in rural areas, to impose their agenda on our state. That’s why I’m carrying Senate Bill 1027, which puts guardrails on this process to make sure those who want to change our state laws and constitution are honest with their petition’s gist, transparent about their finances and talk to voters in more counties before they can advance a question to the ballot.
I know I’m not an Oklahoma lawmaker out grasping for straws to justify an authoritarian power grab, but the part about groups only collecting signatures in Oklahoma City and Tulsa is a blatant lie.
I’ve talked to people who’ve worked on these petition campaigns over the years, and they canvas the entire state in search of enough signatures.
In addition to that, the part about national, leftist groups trying to bypass the majority of Oklahomans is also a blatant lie.
In case you are unaware, all votes count the same when the state question makes the ballot.
Yep, that's right.
We don't have a weird state-level Electoral College where rural counties get bonus ballots and Oklahoma City has to carry a handicap. Whether you live in Boise City or Broken Arrow, you’re allowed to vote for or against a state question and let your democratic voice be heard. And since we all live in the same state with the same laws and government, whichever side gets the most votes wins.
Well, at least for now.
With the way things are going, lawmakers may try to tilt voting in favor of rural Oklahoma, too.
In addition to blocking out-of-state influences and restoring fairness to rural Oklahoma, the third and final totally made-up bullet point that bill backers are spinning is that it will increase transparency.
Via the OCPA:
Oklahoma needs initiative-petition transparency
Oklahoma’s initiative-petition process allows voters to determine major policy issues, but some system flaws have become apparent. That’s why Oklahomans should support bringing greater transparency to the petition process.
Under Senate Bill 1027, the initiative-petition process would have to include clear language, transparent reporting of funders, and buy-in from a wider swath of Oklahoma.
None of these ideas should be controversial.
Yep, none of these ideas should be controversial… if they weren’t unconstitutional.
Although they’re big fans of “transparency” when it’s convenient for them, the OCPA, conservative lawmakers, and other asshats are for some reason hiding the fact that many people seem to think SB 1027 doesn’t pass constitutional muster.
For better or for worse — and, in general, it’s a worse — we have this little U.S. Supreme Court case called Citizens United that basically says political money is protected free speech.
Like it or not, that means you can’t just ban out-of-state groups from spending money to support or oppose a ballot measure. But SB 1027 tries to do exactly that.
It also includes a provision requiring all signature gatherers to be registered Oklahoma voters — something that was already ruled unconstitutional back in 2008 in Yes on Term Limits v. Savage.
In that case, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Oklahoma’s residency requirement for petition circulators, calling it a violation of First Amendment rights.
Ironically, the lawsuit was brought by Yes on Term Limits, a conservative Oklahoma group trying to put — you guessed it — a right-wing term limits measure on the ballot.
You know, back when Republicans still believed in direct democracy.
Although their justifications are weak, misleading, and absurd — and the bill will likely be challenged in the courts — I’d still expect it to make it through the House and land on Stitt’s desk.
I guess the question then is: will Stitt sign it?
On one hand, he’s a hardline rural evangelical conservative who loves sticking it to the libs and city folk, so you’d think he’d be all for it.
Then again, he also specializes in making dumb calls and picking fights with the Legislature, so maybe his next political miscalculation will actually benefit the rest of us for once.
Either way, we’ll be here, screaming to the choir, cutting through the spin, and announcing our authoritarian lawmakers’ true intentions to anyone still listening.
Stay with The Lost Ogle. We’ll keep you advised.
