EZZELL v. LACK, 480 P.3d 906

Ben Ezzell, Enid City Commissioner (Ward 3), faced a recall petition filed Aug. 4, 2020 with ~204 alleged Ward‑3 signatures largely motivated by his support for a city mask mandate.
Circulators signed notarized affirmations stating signatures were collected at signers' homes, were from persons they knew, or were verified via the okvoterportal; the City Clerk learned some signatures had not been collected at homes.
Circulators submitted a supplemental notarized page (Aug. 5) identifying whether each signer was known or collected at home; no photo‑ID checks were documented.
The City Clerk initially deemed the petition insufficient, then on Aug. 7 certified it sufficient and published notice; an election was scheduled for Feb. 9, 2021.
Ezzell filed a protest in district court arguing the petition failed to comply with state statutes 34 O.S. §3 (mandatory warning on petition) and 34 O.S. §6 (circulator verification), so it was legally insufficient.
The trial court upheld the petition under the Enid charter; the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal and reversed, holding state statutes applied and the petition was insufficient on its face.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ezzell)	Defendant's Argument (Enid)	Held
Applicability of state statutory signature rules to Enid charter recall	§§3 and §6 (Title 34) apply to municipal recalls and supplant any charter gaps	Only 11 O.S. §15‑104 (publication/protest timing) applies; charter suffices otherwise	State §§3 and §6 apply (no conflict with charter) and should have been followed
Required warning on petition (34 O.S. §3)	Omission of the printed "Warning" is fatal; it guards against fraud	Charter does not expressly require §3 warning; omission not fatal	Warning clause is essential to prevent fraud; omission renders petition invalid on its face
Circulator verification form and verification method (34 O.S. §6)	Circulators failed to verify signatures were signed in their presence and did not verify voter info/photo ID as required	Supplemental notarizations and the clerk's review reasonably established sufficiency	Verification requirements are indispensable; circulator affidavits here did not satisfy statutory requirements
Deference to City Clerk's sufficiency determination	Clerk exceeded authority by accepting inadequate affidavits; court should enjoin election	Clerk's discretionary certification is conclusive absent fraud/arbitrary action	Clerk's certification cannot excuse failure to comply with controlling state statutes; trial court erred in upholding petition

Clapsaddle v. Blevins, 66 P.3d 352 (Okla. 1998) (§15‑104 provides exclusive procedure to contest recall petitions; state law can supplant charter where matter is not purely local)
Dunham v. Ardery, 143 P. 331 (Okla. 1914) (charter cities may provide recall; clerk's sufficiency determination is conclusive absent fraud or arbitrary action)
In re Initiative Petition No. 2 (Cushing) v. Harlow, 10 P.2d 271 (Okla. 1932) (when charter is silent, state initiative/referendum procedure governs municipal measures)
Community Gas & Serv. Co. v. Walbaum, 404 P.2d 1014 (Okla. 1965) (warning clause and circulator verification are indispensable; omission is fatal)
State v. Pulliam, 25 P.2d 64 (Okla. 1933) (signatures are presumed valid absent adequate showing to the contrary; procedural safeguards protect against corruption)