Miller v. Ellis

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed a trial court judgment striking Referendum Petition 1920-1 concerning amendments to the University North Park tax increment financing district in Norman, Oklahoma. The Court held that the petition's gist was legally insufficient because it failed to explain the amendments, their effects, or the consequences of rejecting the ordinance at the polls.

Holdings

1. The same legal-sufficiency standard applies to the gist of a referendum petition and an initiative petition; a referendum petition does not receive a different standard.
2. A legally sufficient petition gist must prevent fraud, deceit, or corruption by notifying signatories of the changes being made and explaining the proposal's effect, thereby providing enough information for an informed decision about the measure's true nature.
3. The gist of Referendum Petition 1920-1 was legally insufficient because it did not explain the amendments to the University North Park tax increment financing district plan or the effect of rejecting the ordinance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the sufficiency standard for the gist of a referendum petition differs from the standard applicable to an initiative petition.
2. Whether the gist of Referendum Petition 1920-1 was legally sufficient to inform signatories of the measure's nature and effect.

Disposition

affirmed