Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that state election statutes governing petition signatures and circulator verification applied to an Enid city recall petition because they did not conflict with the city's charter. Because the petition did not substantially comply with those statutory requirements, the court held it insufficient on its face and reversed the district court's order allowing the recall election to proceed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Oklahoma's general election statutes, including 34 O.S. 2011 § 3 and 34 O.S. Supp. 2015 § 6, applied to a recall petition governed in part by the City of Enid's charter.
- Whether the failure to include the statutory warning and comply with the statutory circulator-verification requirements rendered the recall petition insufficient on its face.
- Whether the district court erred by allowing the recall election to proceed.
Holdings
- Because the Enid city charter did not conflict with the additional safeguards imposed by 34 O.S. 2011 § 3 and 34 O.S. Supp. 2015 § 6, those state statutes applied to the recall petition.
- The recall petition was insufficient on its face because it materially failed to comply with statutory requirements that were essential to preventing fraud, corruption, and deception in the election process.
- The district court erred by permitting the recall election to proceed, and its order was reversed.
Key quotations
“We hold that because there is no conflict between the City Charter recall process, and the additional state requirements of 34 O.S. 2011 §3 and 34 O.S. Supp. 2015 §6, the state statutes governed, but were not properly followed.” (¶ 2)
“Pursuant to Walburn, supra, the recall petition was invalid on its face because a statutory provision which is essential to guard against fraud, corruption and deception in the election process must be viewed as an indispensable requirement and failure to substantially comply therewith is fatal.” (¶ 35)
Factual background
Voters in Enid's Ward Three submitted a petition seeking to recall City Commissioner Ben Ezzell, primarily because of his support for a citywide mask mandate during the COVID-19 pandemic. The circulators' original verifications stated that signatures were collected from persons known to them, verified through the state voter portal, or represented by persons claiming to be registered Ward Three voters; the circulators later acknowledged that some signatures had not been collected at the voters' homes. The petition lacked the statutory warning required by 34 O.S. 2011 § 3 and did not comply with the signature-verification requirements of 34 O.S. Supp. 2015 § 6.
Procedural history
Ezzell objected in the District Court of Garfield County to a recall petition submitted to City of Enid officials. The district court determined that the petition was sufficient and permitted a recall election to proceed. Ezzell appealed, and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma retained the cause, reversed the trial court, and held the recall petition insufficient on its face.