Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that state statutory requirements governing initiative and referendum petitions applied to a recall petition filed under the City of Enid charter because the state requirements did not conflict with the charter. The petition failed to comply with statutory warning and voter-verification requirements, making it insufficient on its face. The court reversed the district court and invalidated the scheduled recall election.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Oklahoma's general election and initiative-and-referendum statutes, including 34 O.S. 2011 § 3 and 34 O.S. Supp. 2015 § 6, applied to a recall petition filed under the City of Enid's charter.
- Whether the absence of the statutory warning and the failure to comply with the statutory circulator-verification requirements rendered the recall petition facially insufficient.
- Whether the Garfield County District Court erred by allowing the recall election to proceed.
Holdings
- State election requirements in 34 O.S. 2011 § 3 and 34 O.S. Supp. 2015 § 6 apply to the Enid recall petition because they do not conflict with the Enid City Charter and address matters beyond purely local concern.
- The recall petition was insufficient on its face because the statutory warning and circulator-verification requirements were not substantially followed.
- The trial court erred by determining that the recall petition was sufficient and permitting the election to proceed.
Key quotations
“Nothing in these statutes expressly conflict with the COE City Charter recall provision. Rather, the statutes merely impose additional measures, further ensuring the sanctity of the election process, as well as the veracity and validity of the voters.” (¶32)
“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)
“However, because we do engage in such presumptions, the Court is compelled to correct any fatal flaws before an election occurs.” (¶37)
Factual background
Enid voters submitted a petition on August 4, 2020, seeking to recall Ward Three City Commissioner Ben Ezzell, in part because of his support for a citywide mask mandate during the COVID-19 pandemic. The circulators' original verification stated that signatures were collected from persons known to them, at their homes, or verified through an online voter portal, but the circulators acknowledged that some signatures were not collected at the voters' homes. The petition lacked the statutory warning and did not comply with the statutory signature-verification requirements, including verification of voter information. Although supplemental information was later added, there was no indication that photo identification had been checked.
Procedural history
Enid voters submitted a petition seeking to recall City Commissioner Ben Ezzell. The City Clerk initially deemed the petition insufficient, but later deemed it sufficient after supplemental information was added. Ezzell filed an objection and protest in the Garfield County District Court, which found the petition sufficient and allowed the recall election to proceed. Ezzell appealed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the cause, reversed the trial court, and held the recall petition facially insufficient.