¶ 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.

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. In Harding v. State Election Board, 197 Okla. 291, 170 P.2d 208 (1946), the petitioner waited ten days to seek extraordinary relief against the Board after it removed his name from the ballot. This court found the ten day delay was not diligent and held petitioner barred by laches.

s 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 correct any irregularities before the vote was cast."); Kewaygoshkum v. Grand Traverse Band Election Bd., 2008-1199-CV-CV, 2008-1200-CV-CV, 2008 WL 6196207, at *7 (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Tribal Judiciary 2008) (en banc) ("In the instant case, nearly all of the allegations by both Plaintiffs against the Election Board relate to actions taken (or not taken) by the Election Board prior to the general election .... [T]hey are not timely raised at this point and should be barred under the doctrine of laches."); Moore v. City of Pacific, 534 S.W.2d 486,

It is the duty of the petitioners to proceed with the utmost diligence in asserting in a proper forum their claimed rights.Harding v. State Election Bd., 1946 OK 171, ¶ 12, 197 Okla. 291, 170 P.2d 208. ¶ 5 Laches may bar the right to challenge the balloting process.

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. Evans, 804 P.2d at 1127-1128.

Heretofore, right to the exercise of the elective franchise, including the right of seeking election to public office, has been considered by this court as presenting a justiciable issue and not one political or governmental in its nature such as by state courts would be tabooed. Fitzpatrick v. McAlister, 121 Okla. 83, 248 P. 569; Harding v. State Election Board, 197 Okla. 208, 170 P.2d 208; Love v. State Election Board, 197 Okla. 165, 193, 170 P.2d 191, 193; State ex rel. Bailey v. State Election Board, 197 Okla. 167, 170 P.2d 206; Turner v. State Election Board, 197 Okla. 153, 169 P.2d 285.