The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed a Cleveland County District Court ruling that struck down Referendum Petition 2425-1 related to Norman's Rock Creek Entertainment District Project, finding the petition legally insufficient in *Allison v. McCoy-Post* (Okla. 2026).
The case, decided Feb. 3, 2026, involved petitioners Kyle Allison, Vernon McKown Jr., David Nimmo, and Philip Quinn challenging a referendum petition filed by respondents Pamela Sue McCoy-Post, Paul Thomas Arcaroli, and Richard Lorenz Sondag. The trial court had granted the protesters' challenge to the legal sufficiency of the referendum petition, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.
According to the court's opinion, written by Vice Chief Justice Kuehn, the trial court found "the gist of Referendum Petition 2425-1 legally insufficient." The Supreme Court affirmed this finding after the referendum proponents appealed the Cleveland County trial court's order.
The dispute centers on Norman's Rock Creek Entertainment District Project Plan, which the City of Norman adopted a resolution to consider in November 2023. The Rock Creek Plan would expand the University North Park area, though specific details about the project's scope and implications were not fully detailed in the available court documents.
Referendum Petition 2425-1 was filed in connection with Ordinance No. 2425-2 of the City of Norman, Oklahoma. Under Oklahoma law, referendum petitions allow citizens to challenge municipal ordinances by collecting sufficient signatures to force a public vote on the measure. However, such petitions must meet specific legal requirements regarding their format, content, and the accuracy of their description of the underlying ordinance.
The legal challenge focused on what courts call the "gist" of the referendum petition - essentially, whether the petition accurately and fairly summarized the ordinance it sought to challenge. Courts require that referendum petitions provide voters with a clear and accurate understanding of what they would be voting on, without misleading or confusing language.
In this case, both the trial court and the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that Referendum Petition 2425-1 failed to meet these legal standards. The Supreme Court's decision means that the referendum petition cannot proceed, effectively ending the attempt to force a public vote on Norman's Rock Creek Entertainment District Project through this particular petition.
The legal representation in the case reflected the high stakes involved. Referendum proponents were represented by Robert E. Norman of Oklahoma City. The protesters who challenged the petition were represented by a team of attorneys including Glenn Coffee, Michael Fields, and Denise Lawson from Glenn Coffee and Associates PLLC in Oklahoma City; Sean Paul Rieger and Daniel Sadler from Reiger Sadler Joyce LLC in Norman; and Scott Henderson and Spencer F. Smith from McAfee & Taft in Oklahoma City.
The case highlights the technical requirements that govern Oklahoma's referendum process. State law requires that referendum petitions meet strict legal standards to ensure that voters receive accurate information about the measures they're asked to consider. When petitions fail to meet these standards, courts will strike them down regardless of the number of signatures collected.
This decision represents a significant development for Norman residents and local governance. The Rock Creek Entertainment District Project Plan, which would expand the University North Park area, will now proceed without the referendum challenge that the petition would have created.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling also establishes precedent for how courts will evaluate the legal sufficiency of referendum petitions in similar cases. The decision reinforces that petition language must accurately reflect the substance of the ordinance being challenged and provide voters with clear, unbiased information.
For municipal governments across Oklahoma, the ruling provides guidance on the standards that referendum petitions must meet. It also demonstrates the importance of careful drafting when citizens seek to challenge local ordinances through the referendum process.
The case originated in Cleveland County District Court under the Honorable Jeff Virgin before being appealed to the state's highest court. The Supreme Court retained the appeal and issued its affirming opinion, bringing the legal challenge to a close.
It's worth noting that the Supreme Court's opinion carries a notice that it "has not been released for publication" and remains "subject to revision or withdrawal" until officially released. However, the court's decision to affirm the trial court's ruling appears final, ending this particular challenge to Norman's Rock Creek project.
The ruling demonstrates the careful balance Oklahoma courts maintain between protecting citizens' rights to challenge government actions through referendums while ensuring that such challenges meet proper legal standards to avoid confusion or misinformation in the democratic process.