OKLAHOMA CITY (Legal Newsline) – An Oklahoma city commissioner who supported a face mask mandate has defeated a recall petition from unhappy constituents.
The state Supreme Court ruled Jan. 26 that the effort to oust Enid commissioner Ben Ezzell from office won’t continue after Ezzell filed an objection in Garfield County District Court. The ruling says the state laws governing signature collection weren’t followed.
A 1998 ruling held that city recall measures are governed by state statutory provisions for initiative and referendum. That case concerned notice provisions but is now extended to the issues in the instant case.
“As a matter of public policy, once an election occurs, the court usually indulges every presumption in favor of its validity,” Justice Justice Yvonne Kauger wrote. “Where possible, the validity of an election will be sustained, an election which is not clearly illegal will be upheld.
“Generally, in the absence of fraud or corruption, and in the presence of merely statutory informalities, the results of the election will not be invalidated.”
Ezzell has been in office since 2013 but ran afoul of some Enid citizens by supporting face masks and Centers for Disease Control guidelines to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recall organizers gathered signatures online, which meant notarization of them were inaccurate. Circulators were also told to identify which signers they knew personally. In August, the city clerk deemed the petition sufficient to order a recall election.
Ezzell argued the signature collectors did not provide a voter warning or check photo IDs and other information.
The city had a charter that addressed the recall election with weaker requirements than state law. After the trial court ruled the city’s charter applied, the state Supreme Court disagreed.
“(T)he 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,” Kauger wrote.
“The (Enid) city charter expressly makes general election statutes, which are aimed at corruption-free elections, applicable. In this case, there was no conflict with the state statutes, they merely add additional safeguard measures to ensure a fair and corruption-free election.”