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

Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8 (2026)

See the following versions:

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

OS 34-8v1 (SB 518, Laws 2024, c. 119, § 3) OS 34-8v2 (SB 1027, Laws 2025, c. 275, § 3)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: In re Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767, 2014 OK 23.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767, 2014 OK 23. · cites it 13× “194 provides that an objection to an initiative petition is commenced in the Supreme Court and the controversy proceeds in accordance with the procedures set out in 34 O.S. § 8. It further states that the proceeding shall be treated as an original action, and that the parties…”
Ocpa Impact, Inc. v. Sheehan, 2016 OK 84, 377 P.3d 138. · cites it 9× “After filing the petition with the Secretary of State pursuant to Title 34 O.S. § 8, citizens are notified they may object to the constitutionality of the petition.”
In re Initiative Petition No. 366, State Question No. 689, 2002 OK 21, 46 P.3d 123. · cites it 12× “2d 467, 469 ("The withdrawal or dismissal of a protest to an initiative measure is in effect its abandonment within the meaning of 34 O.S.1961 § 8. Upon such withdrawal the protest is treated as abandoned subject to the right of `any other citizen' to revive it within five days…”
In re Initiative Petition No. 315, State Question No. 553, 649 P.2d 545 (Okla. 1982). · cites it 9× “4) Proponents circulation of the petition exceeded the ninety-day period prescribed by 34 O.S.Supp. 1973 § 8. I and II The contestants urge that the unconstitutionality of §§ 7 and 9 renders the petition invalid.”
Nichols v. Ziriax, 2022 OK 76, 518 P.3d 883. · cites it 30× “At the time Petitioners filed their petition for an emergency writ on August 22nd, this Court had not even certified the number of signatures on SQ820's initiative petitions as numerically sufficient pursuant to 34 O.S.2021, § 8 See 34 O.S.2021, § 8 26 O.”
In re Initiative Petition No. 358, State Question No. 658, 870 P.2d 782 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 6× “In accordance with the notions of separation of powers, we have consistently confined our pre-election review of initiative petitions under 34 O.S.Supp. 1993, § 8 to clear or manifest facial constitutional infirmities.”
In re Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767, 2014 OK 23, 326 P.3d 496. · cites it 3× “The Court may issue directions when the procedure is not set out in 34 O.S. § 8. in this Rule, or in Part VI of these Rules.”
In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 625 P.2d 595 (Okla. 1980). · cites it 4× “Such proceedings are authorized by 34 O.S.Supp. 1979, § 8. This action was ordered bifurcated and the evidentiary hearing on the protest to signatures was referred to a Referee of the Supreme Court.”
In re Initiative Petition No. 360, 879 P.2d 810 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 4× “This is an original action brought pursuant to 34 O.S.Supp. 1992, § 8 challenging the legal sufficiency of Initiative Petition 360, State Question 662 (Petition), and an appeal pursuant to 34 O.”
In re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672, 927 P.2d 558 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 3× “This is an original proceeding, brought under the authority of 34 O.S.Supp.1992 § 8 1 to challenge the legal sufficiency of Initiative Petition No.”
Brock v. Thompson, 1997 OK 127, 948 P.2d 279. · cites it 2× “34 O.S.Supp. 1992 § 8(A). When an initiative petition proposes a statute, the proponents must collect signatures equal to eight percent of the votes cast in the last general election.”
In re Initiative Petition No. 384, State Question No. 731, 2007 OK 48, 164 P.3d 125. “Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8 (2001). Upon such protest, this Court must review the petition to ensure that it complies with the "parameters of the rights and restrictions [as] established by the Oklahoma Constitution, legislative enactments and this Court's jurisprudence.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8(A): 3 cases
Brock v. Thompson, 1997 OK 127, 948 P.2d 279. “34 O.S.Supp. 1992 § 8(A). When an initiative petition proposes a statute, the proponents must collect signatures equal to eight percent of the votes cast in the last general election.”
In re Initiative Petition No. 366, State Question No. 689, 2002 OK 21, 46 P.3d 123. “2d 467, 469 ("The withdrawal or dismissal of a protest to an initiative measure is in effect its abandonment within the meaning of 34 O.S.1961 § 8. Upon such withdrawal the protest is treated as abandoned subject to the right of `any other citizen' to revive it within five days…”
In re State Question No. 832 Initiative Petition No. 446, 2024 OK 60, 558 P.3d 19.
Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8(B): 4 cases
In re Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767, 2014 OK 23. “194 provides that an objection to an initiative petition is commenced in the Supreme Court and the controversy proceeds in accordance with the procedures set out in 34 O.S. § 8. It further states that the proceeding shall be treated as an original action, and that the parties…”
Oklahoma's Child. v. Coburn, 421 P.3d 867 (Okla. 2018).
Save the Illinois River, Inc. v. State Ex. Rel. Okla. State Election Bd., 2016 OK 86.
State Chamber of Oklahoma v. Cobbs, 2024 OK 13, 545 P.3d 1216.
Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8(C): 2 cases
In re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672, 927 P.2d 558 (Okla. 1996). “This is an original proceeding, brought under the authority of 34 O.S.Supp.1992 § 8 1 to challenge the legal sufficiency of Initiative Petition No.”
In re State Question No. 832 Initiative Petition No. 446, 2024 OK 60, 558 P.3d 19.
Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8(D): 1 case
State Chamber of Oklahoma v. Cobbs, 2024 OK 13, 545 P.3d 1216.
Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8(E): 2 cases
In re Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767, 2014 OK 23. “194 provides that an objection to an initiative petition is commenced in the Supreme Court and the controversy proceeds in accordance with the procedures set out in 34 O.S. § 8. It further states that the proceeding shall be treated as an original action, and that the parties…”
In re Initiative Petition No. 397, State Question No. 767, 2014 OK 23, 326 P.3d 496. “The Court may issue directions when the procedure is not set out in 34 O.S. § 8. in this Rule, or in Part VI of these Rules.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8(H): 1 case
In re State Question No. 832 Initiative Petition No. 446, 2024 OK 60, 558 P.3d 19.
Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8(H)(1): 1 case
In re State Question No. 832 Initiative Petition No. 446, 2024 OK 60, 558 P.3d 19.
Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8(H)(2): 1 case
In re State Question No. 832 Initiative Petition No. 446, 2024 OK 60, 558 P.3d 19.
Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8(I): 1 case
In re State Question No. 832 Initiative Petition No. 446, 2024 OK 60, 558 P.3d 19.
Okla. Stat. tit. 34, § 8(K): 1 case
In re State Question No. 832 Initiative Petition No. 446, 2024 OK 60, 558 P.3d 19.
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.