Yes on Term Limits

From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from Oklahoma Yes on Term Limits)
Jump to: navigation, search
Yes on Term Limits (YOTL) is a grassroots committee in Oklahoma working to place term limits on the offices of Lieutenant Governor, State Auditor and Inspector, Attorney General, State Treasurer, Commissioner of Labor, and Superintendent of Public Instruction in the state of Oklahoma, through an initiated constitutional amendment. Officeholders in these positions would be limited to serving two 4-year lifetime terms.

YOTL started a petition drive in 2007 to qualify a term limits measure for the Oklahoma ballot. Because of stringent ballot access requirements in the state, YOTL filed a lawsuit, Yes on Term Limits v Savage, challenging Oklahoma's residency requirements for petition circulators. The outcome of this lawsuit was that a federal circuit court declared that Oklahoma's law, which made it a crime for people who are not residents of Oklahoma to ask Oklahomans to sign a petition, was unconstitutional.

Supporting statements

  • "Incredibly, nearly 80% of Oklahomans want term limits on statewide elected officials. These numbers indicate they believe strongly that new ideas and new people need to be brought into the process. The current system of what is essentially 'tenure' for statewide elected officials needs to be ended immediately."[1]


Officers for Yes on Term Limits includes:
Chairman James Dunn of Oklahoma City
Board Member Dr. Michael Ritze of Tulsa
Treasurer Jack Dake Jr.
Vice Chair Robert Murphy

Ballot Qualification Requirements

Petition organizers need to obtain over 200,000 signatures within 90 days of September 10, 2007.[2]


On Friday, September 7, a federal judge in Oklahoma City ruled against a lawsuit filed by the proponents of Oklahoma Yes on Term Limits. The federal lawsuit challenged the provision in Oklahoma's initiative petition process that requires that people who circulate petitions be residents of the state.

The lawsuit claimed that current Oklahoma law violates the First Amendment right of citizens to engage in political association, and also maintained that the residency requirement violates the "Privileges and Immunities" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Tim Leonard rejected these claims, writing that the state has "a compelling interest in protecting and policing both the integrity and the reliability of its initiative process."[3]

An appeal to the ruling has been sent to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.[4]

See Yes on Term Limits v Savage.

New Coverage


External links

See also