## Facts

- Oklahoma’s initiative process requires proponents of a constitutional amendment to collect signatures equal to 15% of votes cast in the prior general election for the highest-vote statewide office, within a 90-day period.
- Oklahoma administered a rule that signatures gathered by nonresident petition circulators would not be counted, effectively requiring circulators to be Oklahoma residents.
- Yes on Term Limits, Inc., its chair Robert Murphy, and nonresident professional circulators sought to qualify a term-limits constitutional initiative for the ballot.
- The proponents asserted that the residency rule hindered their ability to obtain enough signatures within the 90-day window because the supply of experienced resident circulators was limited and nonresident professionals were more effective.
- Plaintiffs filed a § 1983 action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of the First Amendment, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Dormant Commerce Clause.
- The district court upheld the residency requirement under strict scrutiny as narrowly tailored to Oklahoma’s asserted interest in protecting initiative-process integrity and denied injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Oklahoma’s categorical refusal to count signatures gathered by nonresident petition circulators imposes a severe burden on core political speech and violates the First Amendment.
2. Whether the State proved the residency ban is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in preventing fraud and protecting the integrity of the initiative process.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded.
- The court held that petition circulation is core political speech and that the residency ban severely burdens that speech by excluding an entire class of potential speakers.
- Although Oklahoma’s interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the initiative process was compelling, the residency ban failed strict scrutiny because it was not narrowly tailored.
- The court did not reach detailed analysis of the Privileges and Immunities or Dormant Commerce Clause theories after resolving the case on First Amendment grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Circulation of initiative petitions is core political speech protected by the First Amendment.
- A regulation that materially restricts who may circulate petitions, and thereby limits the number and identity of speakers, can impose a severe burden triggering strict scrutiny.
- Even where a state demonstrates a compelling interest in preventing fraud and ensuring administrative accountability in elections, it must show the restriction is narrowly tailored.
- A categorical ban on nonresident petition circulators is not narrowly tailored absent evidence that nonresidents, as a class, pose heightened fraud or accountability risks, especially where less restrictive measures (e.g., registration, contact disclosures, affidavits, or consent to jurisdiction/return for investigation) are available.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that Oklahoma’s nonresident petition-circulator ban imposed a severe burden on protected political expression and failed strict scrutiny because the State did not justify a categorical exclusion when narrower anti-fraud and accountability measures were available, requiring reversal of the district court and remand.


Yes on Term Limits, Inc. v. Savage, 550 F.3d 1023 (10th Cir. 2008)