The changed language is the equivalent of an argument against the proposal, they allege.

Pruitt’s office argued that the changed language explained the effects of the state questions in a clear and objective manner.

“We find the rewritten ballot titles to be misleading and partial,” the court opinion states. “However, we conclude neither of the parties’ proposed ballot titles sufficiently describe the measures involved.”

“The Attorney General’s Office is disappointed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision and we believe the substitute ballot title does not adequately explain the effects of the measure,” said Will Gattenby, a Pruitt spokesman.

The state questions were put on the ballot after a successful initiative petition drive by Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform.

The measures were championed by former House Speaker Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, and Rep. George Young, D-Oklahoma City. Steele and Young were among those filing a challenge to Pruitt’s rewritten ballot title.

“I truly believe the process has worked the way it is intended to work,” Steele said. “I commend the Supreme Court for doing their job with dispatch. I think that the Supreme Court’s description of the reforms contained in State Question 780 and State Question 781 are accurate. The reforms that the voters will be asked to consider in November will be easy to understand based on the Supreme Court’s decision.”

Barbara Hoberock 405-528-2465 Barbara.Hoberock@tulsaworld.com

Be the first to know Get local news delivered to your inbox! Sign up! * I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.