Where are those millions of illegal immigrants and outer space folks circulating petitions ???

I.E. Folks are or are NOT members (ELECTORS) of each political community.

NON-members are ALIENS in the regime.

Way too difficult for the MORON party hack Supremes to understand.

Once upon a time some of the ancient Greek city-states had the death penalty for NON-members who got involved in the government of the city-state. Guess why ?

I see your point on the free-speech angle, but my concern is that out-of-state interests with budgets a lot bigger than anything in Oklahoma are going to have too much influence over Oklahoma politics. I trust that the other people commenting here have good intentions for the people of Oklahoma, but I think there are others who are just out to make money, at the expense of the general population. Our state Consitution here in Oklahoma is frightfully easy to change; all it takes is a petition and a 50% vote of the people, and those things can be bought. I fear that allowing out-of-state petition circulators will make that far easier to change the constitution in ways that are harmful to the people of Oklahoma.
Signing a petition is easy – I even accidentally signed that TABOR petition before I reconsidered. Collecting signatures requires more commitment, and by restricting this to people who live in the state, at least they have a vested interest in making sure the changes they are trying to institute are good for the people of the state. If paid signature gatherers come in from elsewhere, they may be trying to improve things for the state, but they also have the motive of earning money, and they don’t have to live with the consequences if things go wrong.
From a logical standpoint, if the actual signing of the petition is restricted to registered voters, it doesn’t seem like too much of a restriction to also require that of the signature gatherers. After all, free speech does not imply that you can vote in a state you are visiting. The question is: Is signature gathering on par with voting, with respect to the level of participation in politics, and if so, shouldn’t it also be restricted to people who live in the place?

Also don’t forget that Arizona has appealed the Nader decision to the US Supreme Court, which hasn’t said yet whether it will hear it.

You know who is probably more pissed off about this than anyone else? Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. That assclown Democrat got out libertarian petitions kicked off the ballot for Property Rights, and Spending Caps in 2006 using the out-of-state petitioner argument.

I was one of those petititoners.

This ruling is extra-sweet with the Montana angle and Schweitzer considered.

This is a ridiculous statement. Asking people to sign petitions is a FREE SPEECH activity. If you are going to ban somebody from asking another person to sign a petition just because the person holding the petition normally resides in a different state, you should also prohibit a person who happens to be from a different state who is travelling through say Illinois from talking about anything that is going on in politics in that state – like say the current scandal surrounding Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Asking a person to sign a petition is NOT the same thing as voting. It is a FREE SPEECH activity. Can’t you understand this? Do you not support free speech? Are you anti-American or something?