The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1027, the sweeping legislation enacted in May that imposes several requirements on initiative petition organizers.

The high court’s ruling will shape the future of voter-led ballot initiative campaigns in Oklahoma, which have brought criminal justice reform, legalized medical marijuana and Medicaid expansion to the state over the past decade. Issues including recreational marijuana and sentencing reform qualified for the ballot but were rejected by voters.

For years, Republican legislative leaders argued that it was too easy for initiative petitioners to flood densely populated areas in Oklahoma City and Tulsa and get their question on the ballot.

That sentiment culminated in SB1027, which caps signature collection by county based on the number of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. The measure also requires signature gatherers to be registered Oklahoma voters and gives the Secretary of State power to modify a petition’s gist, among more than a dozen other changes.

Randall Yates, an attorney representing four petitioners challenging the law, argued that the Legislature didn’t have a compelling state interest in enacting SB1027 and therefore exceeded its authority. He said the restrictions imposed in SB1027 effectively nullify a process that the authors of the state constitution intended as a check on the power of elected officials.

“If the Legislature can regulate that check away, it becomes meaningless,” Yates said. Zach West, the director of special litigation for the attorney general’s office, said the Legislature was simply acting on complaints that initiative petitioners weren’t traveling to rural areas. He said petitioners could theoretically get an initiated state statute on the ballot by visiting 16 to 18 counties.

“What could be more suitable or reasonable than a modest effort to ensure at least some Oklahomans from across the state get to participate in initiatives at the front end,” he said. “To hold otherwise is to say that the numerous states with geographic restrictions are all just unreasonable.”

Multiple justices hinted at the possibility of severability, which would allow the court to strike down specific parts of the bill deemed unconstitutional without eradicating the entire measure. The possibility of the lawsuit being remanded to district court was also discussed. Justice Douglas Combs indicated that the high court could stay implementation of the law if the matter drags on.

Justice Noma Gurich, who narrowly survived a retention election last year, indicated that lawmakers may have gone too far with SB1027.

“At some point, the burdens pile up and it becomes an undue burden,” Gurich said. “That’s the concern I have. It’s not that some of these provisions wouldn’t survive a constitutional challenge. It’s where the Legislature has gone beyond implementing, carrying out and preventing corruption.”

Combs said the legislation could be interpreted as favoring certain signatures over others.

“That’s problematic to me,” he said. “I don’t know how the state could legitimately argue that you can sign it, you count, you don’t. It’s a problem.”

In response, West said that SB1027 does not prohibit signature gatherers from building a buffer of additional signatures, and organizers under previous laws often strove to collect more signatures than statutorily required.

Results of similar lawsuits challenging initiative petition requirements in other states have been mixed.

In 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court blocked the implementation of a bill that required 6% of voters in each of the state’s 35 legislative districts to sign onto an initiative petition. In 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court blocked a provision of a 2018 law that capped signature collection at 15% per congressional district, but allowed a requirement for signature collectors to disclose if they’re paid to remain.

Just one initiative petition campaign, State Question 837 to legalize recreational marijuana, has operated under SB1027’s signature gathering requirements. Proponents of that proposed constitutional amendment withdrew their petition on Nov. 4, citing an inability to gather the required number of signatures.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted a stay to State Question 836, an ongoing primary reform initiative petition campaign, because it launched prior to the legislation being enacted. Organizers have a Jan. 26 deadline to submit signatures to the secretary of state’s office.

The high court will rule on SB1027 at a later date.