Oklahoma has been one of the worst states to practice direct democracy. The short, 90-day time period for gathering signatures is a particular problem, making it difficult for anyone but the richest initiative sponsors to qualify a measure. (Such tight time limits, I would argue, also encourage petition fraud, though I've not seen enough data to say so for sure).

But this year, the Oklahoma legislature -- with only one dissenting vote -- opened up the process by passing legislation that would protect petition circulators and lift the 90-day limit. Now, Gov. Brad Henry has vetoed the measure after the legislature has left town (making it next to impossible to override the veto).

Henry argues that the bill's limitations on harassing signature gatherers (which has been something of a problem in Oklahoma) would infringe on the speech rights of others (essentially to scream at petition circulators, grab their paperwork, etc.). This is an interesting argument, and it may be a cynical one. In effect, his veto is an attempt to defend blocking campaigns, and puts the governor on the side of those who would limit access to the ballot.

Henry's veto message is below:

This is to advise you that on this date, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 11 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution to approve or object to legislation presented to me, I have VETOED House Bill 2246. While HB 2246 is designed to strengthen the initiative petition process and contains several good provisions, the bill is fatally flawed because of Section 3, a provision that grants additional rights to petition circulators at the same time it takes away the rights of other citizens. For example, Section 3 would make it a crime for a person to interrupt a conversation between a circulator and a potential signer, touch a petition or promotional material without the consent of a circulator or shout in the presence of a circulator to express opposition to their initiative. Such prohibitions have the effect of discouraging and even criminalizing such basic constitutional rights as free speech and freedom of assembly. Section 3 also provides unscrupulous circulators with a cash incentive to report such offensive speech or assembly by requiring offenders to pay the complaining circulator $500 in statutory damages for each violation. It is critical to have a fair and accessible initiative petition process available to the people, but the meritorious proposals in HB 2246 cannot overcome the harm caused by Section 3. In an effort to enact fair and responsible petition reforms in the next legislative session, I will appoint an interim task force to review the issues addressed in HB 2246 and work on language that strengthens and improves the process without eroding the constitutionally guaranteed rights of individual citizens.