OK Supreme Court hears arguments on State Question that could open primary elections

24 June 2025

By Devyn Lyon, Fox 23, Tulsa, OK

OKLAHOMA CITY — A future ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court could put in motion major changes to Oklahoma elections. 

Arguments were heard in Oklahoma City today on an Initiative Petition (IP448) that wants to put State Question 836 (SQ836) on an election ballot.

State Question 836 would make Oklahoma’s partisan elections an open primary. This means voters would receive one ballot, with every candidate’s name and registered party,

regardless of what the voter's registered party is. Currently, Oklahoma voters receive the ballot that is for their registered party. Independents receive a Democrat ballot.

This petition was filed in January, but in April, Oklahoma’s Republican Party filed a lawsuit to stop the petition from moving forward. At the same time, SB1027 passed through state government to become law, which would nullify IP448, preventing SB836 for open primary elections. However, those behind the petition sued against SB1027 and that is also stalled out in court. 

Tuesday morning, attorneys for both sides made their arguments for over 90 minutes to the State’s highest court.

"Our central argument is this: IP448 forces political parties to associate with candidates they don't support,” said Benjamin P. Sisney, attorney for the State Republican Party. “While the party's name is being used, to declare something to the voter the party does not wish to declare. At the same time it prevents the party from associating with candidates that they do support."

The State Republican Party claimed the state question violated their constitutional rights to associate one candidate of their party towards endorsement. They claimed open primaries would spur confusion among voters on who is a Republican candidate and who is the endorsed Republican candidate.

They sounded the alarm on ‘Trojan Horse’ candidates. Those are candidates who run under one party to gain opposing votes for the general election, and then flip parties at the last minute. The attorneys behind the petition say there’s no evidence of this.

"There’s no evidence,” said Robert McCampbell, attorney for those behind the petition. “Washington State Grange addressed the same issue. Here's how they addressed it, 'In the absence of evidence, we cannot assume that Washington voters will be misled.' The same should be true in this court. In the absence of evidence, this court should not find Oklahoma voters will be misled. This court should not make a constitutional ruling and take away IP448 from voters in the absence of any evidence."

McCampbell references here a similar 2008 ruling in Washington State Grange vs. Washington State Republican Party. You can read about that case here.

Benjamin Sisney concluded his argument by saying, “IP448 unconstitutionally burdens petitioner's first amendment association rights, it lacks a compelling justification, it's not narrowly tailored, it’s not the least bit restrictive and we respectfully request the court strike it from the ballot."

Those behind the petition say this state question would allow voters to choose candidates instead of nominees. 

"The voters are not selecting nominees for a political party,” McCampbell said. “The voters are selecting candidates to advance to the general election and that is the distinction. Washington State Grange says that distinction is constitutionally crucial."

The State Supreme Court typically takes 30-90 days to release final decisions. If they allow the petition to move forward, they would begin collecting signatures. They would need 15 percent of signatures from the total number of voters in the most recent gubernatorial election. It's unlikely this would impact the 2026 election as it is a lengthy process. If enough signatures were gathered, the governor sets a date for it to appear on a ballot as a State Question to go before voters.