Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
You matter here.
sq 836 supporter spotlight
Tony Stobbe is a State Question 836 proponent and respondent in the lawsuit challenging SQ836.
From Oklahoma Voice: “Let the people vote,” [Stobbe] said. “That’s all we’re asking. The only reason party insiders are trying to block SQ 836 in court is because they know it has real momentum. Oklahomans are ready for a system where every voter gets to vote in every election — and the political elites are clearly scared of that.”
State Question 836 Supporters at the Oklahoma Supreme Court
June 24, 2025
OKLAHOMA CITY — Supporters of State Question 836 (SQ 836) appeared before the Oklahoma Supreme Court today to defend the constitutionality of their proposal to bring open primaries to the state.
Delivering oral arguments on behalf of the petitioners was former U.S. Attorney Robert McCampbell of the firm GableGotwals. McCampbell pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 decision in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party—authored by Justice Clarence Thomas—which upheld a nearly identical system as the one proposed by SQ 836. Like Washington’s top-two primary, SQ 836 would allow all candidates to appear on the same ballot and all voters to participate in an open primary election, regardless of party registration.
Tony Stobbe, a petitioner for SQ 836, an independent voter and a retired U.S. Coast Guard Commander was on-hand, along with over a dozen SQ 836 supporters, to witness the proceedings.
“This is not a partisan issue,” said Stobbe. “Let the people vote. That’s all we’re asking. The only reason party insiders are trying to block SQ 836 in court is because they know it has real momentum. Oklahomans are ready for a system where every voter gets to vote in every election—and the political elites are clearly scared of that.”
The lawsuit—Oklahoma Republican Party v. Setter et al.—argues that SQ 836 is unconstitutional, but petitioners maintain the challenge has no merit. Today’s arguments made clear that SQ 836 does not nominate party candidates or restrict parties from endorsing whomever they choose. Instead, it simply changes how publicly funded primaries function: by giving every registered voter a voice.
If the Court rules in favor of the petitioners, supporters will begin gathering signatures to place SQ 836 on the ballot and give voters the final say.
Open Primary Supporters File Lawsuit Against sb 1027
OKLAHOMA CITY — Today, two proponents of State Question 836 (SQ 836) filed a lawsuit in the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging the retroactive application of Senate Bill 1027 (SB 1027), a new law that imposes sweeping restrictions on Oklahoma’s citizen initiative process.
SQ 836 would establish an open primary system in Oklahoma, allowing all voters—regardless of party—to vote in primary elections. The measure was filed in January of 2025 and is currently pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. SB 1027, enacted nearly six months later, attempts to apply new legal hurdles—including signature restrictions, circulation bans, and funding limits—to initiatives that were filed before the law took effect.
The lawsuit challenging SB 1027—filed by Dr. Ken Setter, a retired pediatrician and Republican voter from Tulsa, and Tony Stobbe, a retired U.S. Coast Guard Commander and independent voter from Edmond—asks the Court to declare the retroactivity clause of SB 1027 unconstitutional and block its enforcement against SQ 836. Under Article V, Section 54 of the Oklahoma Constitution, new laws cannot retroactively change the rules for proceedings that have already begun—such as a filed initiative petition. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle just last year in State Question 832.
“You don’t have to agree with SQ 836 to see what’s happening here is wrong,” said Setter. “Politicians should not be attempting to stop this measure by sabotaging it with unconstitutional laws. They should let the voters decide.
“This law doesn’t just bend the rules in favor of powerful politicians—it breaks them entirely for Oklahoma voters,” continued Setter. “Oklahoma’s Constitution gives us the right to petition our government. Senate Bill 1027 strips that right away.”
Stobbe, one of almost 500,000 unaffiliated voters in Oklahoma, emphasized what the stakes are for independents like him.
“I served my country, not a political party,” said Stobbe. “Being politically independent is important to me—and to thousands of veterans and active-duty military across this state. Not being able to vote in Oklahoma’s most meaningful elections is a slap in the face. Having an unconstitutional law try to block the very state question meant to fix that problem is even worse.”
“For a century, Oklahomans of all political stripes have used petitions to solve problems the Legislature either wouldn’t touch or couldn’t get across the finish line,” continued Stobbe. “This is bigger than one law—it’s about defending our right to be heard when our government stops listening.”
This lawsuit filed by Setter and Stobbe focuses solely on SB 1027’s retroactive application to SQ 836. An additional legal challenge, which includes Setter and Stobbe as well as two other Oklahomans, was also filed today, targeting other provisions of the bill that restrict political participation and violate free speech protections (for more information on this second challenge, click here).
Oklahoma United supports sq 836 for fully OPEN PRIMARies.
THE OKLAHOMAN, 3/9/25
Bill that dramatically changes initiative, referendum process clears Senate committee
At least one nationally recognized expert on the U.S. Constitution said the bill's restrictions on the initiative process are unconstitutional. Robert McCampbell, an Oklahoma City attorney who specializes in constitutional law, wrote that the bill was unconstitutional.'
"The bill includes provisions that restrict petition circulators, prohibit out-of-state contributions, grant broad discretionary power to the secretary of state over citizen-initiated petitions, and retroactively change the procedure for initiative petitions. Each of these provisions conflicts with well-established legal precedent," McCampbell wrote in a four-page memo analyzing the measure.
The government, McCampbell said, is not free to "impose burdensome roadblocks to the citizen initiative process."
"The courts are unanimous that circulating a petition is 'core political speech' where First Amendment protection is at its 'zenith," he wrote. "The restrictions on core political speech embodied in SB 1027 cannot survive scrutiny under the First Amendment."
Other opponents of the bill, echoing McCampbell, said SB 1027 would "make it dramatically harder for Oklahomans to bring issues directly to a vote, undermining one of the most fundamental avenues for public participation in policymaking."
"(The) vote to advance SB 1027 is a disappointing step backward for democracy in Oklahoma. By making it harder for citizens to bring issues to the ballot, lawmakers are silencing the voices of everyday Oklahomans and limiting public participation in policymaking," said Margaret Kobos, founder of Oklahoma United. "The right to petition is fundamental to our state's history and this bill adds unnecessary barriers that will make it nearly impossible for grassroots efforts to succeed."
