Yes on Term Limits v. Savage

Drew Edmondson, the Oklahoma Attorney General, argues on behalf of the State of Oklahoma that the current residency requirements are narrowly tailored. The brief says, "Oklahoma has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity, reliability and efficiency of its system of direct democracy and the protest procedures designed to police the system. Oklahoma also has the power to limit self-governance to members of its own political community. The residency requirement is narrowly tailored to these interests."

In the brief, Edmondson argues that "resident circulators can be easily located and compelled to testify; whereas nonresident circulators will most likely never be located and cannot be compelled to testify" in the event of challenges to signatures.

"Phantom interstate menance"

The January brief of YTL starts out, "Oklahoma's blanket ban on nonresident petition circulators offends the First Amendment and the structure of the federal union. It is directed at a phantom interstate menace: the presumed endemic dishonesty of nonresidents who wish to travel to Oklahoma to associate with and speak for local citizens whose own voices for political change are otherwise too faint or dispersed. These are the citizens for whom many states, in a wave of populism, preserved the right to initiative, referendum, and recall. They have no eloquent champions in the press, powerful sponsors among local political elites, or brigades of party or union supporters. They cannot grasp traditional republican levers which have been co-opted by the powers that be; their reform would be stifled without a direct appeal to thinking voters."

"Closes Oklahoma to free exchange of ideas"

In its amicus brief, the Institute for Justice says that Oklahoma's ban on non-resident signature-gathering "closes Oklahoma to the free exchange of ideas that is part of an out-of-stater's efforts to convince an Oklahoma voter to sign a petition."

"Does not prevent fraud"

The amicus brief by the American Civil Rights Coalition takes on the assertion that a ban on non-resident circulators is effective at limiting fraud in the initiative process. "Limiting circulators to Oklahoma residents simply limits the number of people who can commit fraud, it does not prevent it in any serious way", adding, "Moreover, if an out-of-state circulator violates some rule by failing to register with the state or failing to sign an affidavit…the narrowly tailored remedy is to not count the affected signatures, not preclude all out-of-state circulators."

"Fabricating an unwieldy process"

In its final reply brief on February 28, YTL argues, "Defendants claim without proof that there is something peculiarly poisonous about nonresidents. Defendants also claim that Oklahoma has absolute dominion over petition circulation because each Oklahoma petition circulator has somehow been commandeered as an agent of the state, holding official appointments for which Defendants now have a new name: 'verifiers.' But by fabricating an unwieldy process to challenge signatures, Oklahoma cannot dislodge petition circulation from the zenith of First Amendment protection, a status this mode of expression enjoys under Meyer, Buckley, and their progeny."

The final brief contests the assertion by Edmondson that the challenged residency requirement is narrowly tailored, claiming instead, "...a blanket ban on circulation is not the narrow tailoring required by the First Amendment. Short of a ban, Oklahoma has a range of less restrictive options for addressing any specific problem it can prove has infected its petitioning process. Wholesale abrogation of nonresident circulation does not comport with the First Amendment."