Okla. Stat. » Title 34 — INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 24 (2026)

Only substantial compliance required

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The procedure herein prescribed is not mandatory, but if substantially followed will be sufficient. If the end aimed at can be attained and procedure shall be sustained, clerical and mere technical errors shall be disregarded. R.L.1910, § 3393.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2021 · leading case: Oklahoma's Child., Our Future, Inc. v. Coburn, 421 P.3d 867 (Okla. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oklahoma's Child., Our Future, Inc. v. Coburn, 421 P.3d 867 (Okla. 2018). · cites it 4× “The duty devolving upon the correlative legislative branch of government under Const. Art. 5 § 8 causes this court to feel reluctant to adjudicate invalidity of this referendum petition on technical grounds, as technical errors are to be disregarded if the intended purpose can…”
In Re: Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767, 2014 OK 23 (Okla. 2014). · cites it 2× “40 We also note that although the Attorney General states that mandamus may be used, he also invokes the substantial compliance standard of 34 O.S. § 24. 41 ¶32 In some circumstances, judicial application of a substantial compliance standard to a duty to take an action within a…”
In Re Initiative Petition No. 347 State Question No. 639, 813 P.2d 1019 (Okla. 1991). “9 Interpretation of § 6 is governed by 34 O.S.1981 § 24 providing: The proceeding herein prescribed is not mandatory, but if substantially followed will be sufficient.”
In Re Initiative Petition No. 315, State Question No. 553, 649 P.2d 545 (Okla. 1982). “411 (1914); 34 O.S.1971, § 24. . 192 Okl. 251 , 135 P.”
In Re Supreme Court Adjudication of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition in Tulsa, 597 P.2d 1208 (Okla. 1979). “The fact that 34 O.S.1971 § 24 provides that only substantial compliance with the procedure set forth in Title 34 is necessary does not indicate that this Court may ignore the plain meaning of the 1969 amendment by stating the statute was substantially followed.”
In Re Referendum Petition No. 130, St. Question No. 395, 354 P.2d 400 (Okla. 1960). · cites it 2× “)” Protestant first argues that the form of the petition is fatally defective because there is omitted therefrom the words “I have personally signed the petition.”
Cmty. Gas & Serv. Co. v. Walbaum, 404 P.2d 1014 (Okla. 1965). “While clerical and technical defects in an initiative petition may and should be disregarded, 34 O.S.1961, § 24, a material departure from the statutory form renders an initiative petition ineffective and void.”
In Re Initiative Petition No. 259, State Question 376, 316 P.2d 139 (Okla. 1957). “34 O.S.1951 § 24 provides: “The procedure herein prescribed is not mandatory, but if substantially followed will be sufficient.”
In Re Protest to Referendum Petition No. 1968-1 of Norman, 475 P.2d 381 (Okla. 1970). · cites it 2× “5 § 8 causes this court to feel reluctant to adjudicate invalidity of this referendum petition on technical grounds, as technical errors are to be disregarded if the intended purpose can be attained.”
In Re Initiative Petition No. 1, City of Drumright, 298 P.2d 409 (Okla. 1956). “* * * Within ten days after the receipt of the notice of approval by the Attorney General, or of a revised or amended title from him, the Secretary of State shall,' if no appeal is filed, transmit to the Secretary of the State Election Board an attested copy of the pending…”
Bellmon v. Albert, 648 P.2d 1207 (Okla. 1982). · cites it 2× “Title 34 O.S.1981, § 24, provides that super-strict adherence to the statutes is not required: The procedure herein prescribed is not mandatory, but if substantially followed will be sufficient.”
State ex rel. Murray v. Beard, 264 P.2d 305 (Okla. 1953). “The following of the procedural steps provided by the Legislature to procure and vouchsafe to the people the important right of referendum will not be viewed technically.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.