¶ 7 Additionally, this Court has long acknowledged the right to challenge the balloting process in other election matters may be lost by unreasonable delay. See, e.g.,Evans v. State Election Bd. , 1990 OK 132, ¶¶ 12–16, 804 P.2d 1125 (holding challenge to Election Board's ruling 115 days later and post-election challenge to a deceased individual's inclusion on the ballot barred by laches); Wickersham v. State Election Bd. , 1960 OK 245, ¶ 15, 357 P.2d 421 (holding the matter of the eligibility of a candidate for an office must be adjudicated at an early date and before an election is held); Harding v. State Election Bd. , 1946 OK 171, ¶ 2, 197 Okla. 291, 170 P.2d 208 (holding concerning election matters that “time is of the essence and that it was the duty of the petitioner to proceed with utmost diligence in asserting in a proper forum his claimed rights.”). ¶ 8 The lengthy delay between the Governor's proclamation and the lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs/Appellants prejudices the courts.

Although the time has long passed since this Court, when presented with a timely constitutional challenge, will refuse to address a blatantly unconstitutional measure to prevent the costly expenditure of public revenues on needless elections, the challenge must be timely made. See, Evans v. State Election Bd., 1990 OK 132, ¶ 14, 804 P.2d 1125; Wickersham v. State Election Bd., 1960 OK 245, ¶ 0, 357 P.2d 421; Harding v. State Election Bd., see note 1, supra. ¶ 6 The rationale for not addressing this issue at this time has nothing to do with the merits or with the reasoning of Threadgill v. Cross, 1910 OK 165, 109 P. 558. Threadgill has been distinguished, rejected, limited, and eviscerated.

We have stated that the right to contest an election by extraordinary relief may be lost by laches or inexcusable delay. Evans v. State Election Board, 804 P.2d 1125 (Okla. 1990). For example, in Evans we cited Harding v. State Election Board, 197 Okla. 291, 170 P.2d 208 (1946) for the proposition that a delay of ten days in bringing an action for extraordinary relief against the Election Board was not diligent and barred by laches.

Otherwise, the opinion reasoned, voters seeing the name of the deceased candidate might be misled into wasting their votes. As the weight of opinion from other jurisdictions concludes, however, it is not warranted to assume that votes cast for a dead or disqualified candidate are nullities. Perhaps the best-reasoned recent case is Evans v. State Election Board, 804 P.2d 1125 (Oklahoma 1990). In Evans, the Oklahoma Supreme Court surveyed the case law and noted that some states follow a minority, or "English" rule, while most follow an "American" rule.

rel. SuperAmerica Grp. v. Licking Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 182, 685 N.E.2d 507, 510 (1997) ("In election-related matters, extreme diligence and promptness are required. Extraordinary relief has been routinely denied in election-related cases based on laches."); Tully v. State, 143 Ill.2d 425, 158 Ill.Dec. 546, 574 N.E.2d 659, 663 (1991) (applying laches to bar challenge to an automatic retirement statute where a retired judge "was at least constructively aware of the fact that his seat was declared vacant" and an election had already taken place to replace him); Lewis v. Cayetano, 72 Haw. 499, 823 P.2d 738, 741 (1992) ("We apply the doctrine of laches ... because efficient use of public resources demand that we not allow persons to gamble on the outcome of the election contest then challenge it when dissatisfied with the results, especially when the same challenge could have been made before the public is put through the time and expense of the entire election process."); Evans v. State Election Bd. of State of Okla., 804 P.2d 1125, 1127 (Okla. 1990) ("It is well settled that one who seeks to challenge or correct an error of the State Election Board will be barred by laches if he does not act with diligence."); Thirty Voters of Kauai Cnty. v. Doi, 61 Haw. 179, 599 P.2d 286, 288 (1979) ("The general rule is that if there has been opportunity to correct any irregularities in the election process or in the ballot prior to the election itself, plaintiffs will not, in the absence of fraud or major misconduct, be heard to complain of them afterward."); Harding v. State Election Board, 197 Okla. 291, 170 P.2d 208, 209 (1946) (per curiam) ("[I]t is manifest that time is of the essence and that it was the duty of the petitioner to proceed with utmost diligence in asserting in a proper forum his claimed rights. The law favors the diligent rather than the slothful."); Mehling v. Moorehead, 133 Ohio St. 395, 14 N.E.2d 15, 20 (1938) ("So in this case, the election, having been held, should not be disturbed when there was full opportunity to co

votes cast for a deceased, disqualified, or ineligible person are not to be treated as void or thrown away, but are to be counted in determining the result of the election as regards to other candidates. . . . The result of its application in such cases is to render the election nugatory, and to prevent the election of the person receiving the next highest number of votes. P.V. Smith, Annotation, Result of Election as Affected by Votes Cast for Deceased or Disqualified Person, 133 A.L.R. 319, 321 (1941) (listing cases from 29 jurisdictions); see also Evans v. State Election Bd., 804 P.2d 1125, 1130 (Okla. 1991) (quoting Smith, supra, 133 A.L.R. at 321); 2 CHESTER J. ANTIEAU, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LAW, § 17.24 (1992) ("a person receiving only a minority of the legal votes cast in a local government election is not to be awarded the office when the person receiving the largest vote is legally disqualified"); 3 EUGENE MCQUILLAN, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, § 12.17 (3d ed. 1990) (same); 26 AM.JUR.2D Elections § 293 (1966) (a "problem arises where a deceased or disqualified candidate receives the most votes, and . . . the statute provides that a candidate must receive . . . the highest number of votes. In such a case, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the result is to render the election nugatory, and to prevent the election of the person receiving the next highest number of votes").