OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT SETS DATE TO HEAR KEYES’ CASE ON ALLEGED BALLOT HARVESTING IN SD-15 RACE

CASE INFORMATION ON OSCN

Nov. 12, 2024 (Oklahoma City, Okla.) – The Oklahoma State Supreme Court acted this week on Robert Keyes’ Application and Petition that calls on the Court to compel the district court judge to address potential evidence of absentee ballot harvesting by the Lisa Standridge campaign in the recent August runoff for State Senate District 15 (SD-15). 

The Oklahoma Supreme Court will hear oral presentations on Dec. 3 at 10:30am. 

“Due to the Standridge campaign’s unwillingness to do what is right and address evidence of ballot harvesting by her campaign, I was compelled to take this matter to the State Supreme Court,” said Robert Keyes, prominent Oklahoma businessman and former Republican candidate for SD-15. “I am alarmed by the great lengths campaign officials, and shockingly, state institutions have gone to hide this evidence and erode integrity in our election system. Oklahomans deserve a trustworthy election system, and I will keep fighting to hold people accountable for clear violations of the law to inappropriately influence elections.”

Absentee ballot harvesting involving ten or more absentee ballots and absentee ballot affidavits is a felony, punishable by five years in prison, a $50,000 fine, or both. See 26 O.S. § 16-104.1(A). Moreover, it is also a felony under Oklahoma law for any person to direct or cause another person or persons to commit acts of ballot harvesting, which would include the candidate. See 26 O.S. § 16-104.1(B). 

The consequence for committing the felony of absentee ballot harvesting would likely also prohibit a candidate, if involved, from either being eligible to be a candidate or from being elected to any “state, county, municipal, judicial or school office or any other elective office of any political subdivision of this state for a period of fifteen (15) years following completion of [their] sentence or during the pendency of any appeal of such conviction or plea.” 26 O.S. § 5-105a(A).

“When my campaign first discovered the evidence of ballot harvesting, we simply asked for a commitment to transparency and accountability by acknowledging such activity. Unfortunately, the Standridge campaign and the Oklahoma State and Cleveland County Election Boards have taken steps to prevent judicial inquiry into what is regarded as serious crimes, to suppress evidence, and to obstruct judicial findings,” said Keyes. 

In the tightly contested August 27 runoff, Keyes narrowly trailed Lisa Standridge by a mere 55 votes. During a court-ordered recount, evidence of illegal absentee ballot harvesting surfaced along with other election irregularities involving the Standridge campaign, which some acts, if true, are considered felonies.

In his Supreme Court brief, Keyes points to specific Oklahoma statutes upholding the right to vote free from fraud, citing recent court rulings:

“Oklahoma takes quite seriously the need to protect the right of suffrage protected from fraud. Gentges v. Okla. State Election Bd., 2014 OK 8, ¶ 21, 319 P.3d 674, 679. Accordingly, it takes absentee ballot harvesting seriously. Under 26 O.S. § 14-101(A)(7), absentee ballot harvesting includes either notarizing or witnessing more absentee ballots than allowed by law. Under 26 O.S. § 14-108(A), the number of absentee ballots Standridge’s campaign treasurer could lawfully witness is zero. Under 26 O.S. § 14-108(B), the number of absentee ballots she could lawfully notarize is also zero.”

Keyes filed his extraordinary writ to the Oklahoma State Supreme Court after the district court failed to uphold an agreement by the parties, made on September 6, for the district court to make evidentiary rulings and render findings of fact and conclusions of law that included the evidence of illegal absentee ballot harvesting. 

However, after the Standridge campaign and election boards reversed course on the agreement, which was read into the record, the district court entered an order without any reference to the serious crimes to be addressed. Keyes subsequently filed a motion for the district court to modify its ruling to include the issues agreed upon to resolve the irregularities hearing.

In direct contradiction to the settlement, the Standridge campaign and election boards opposed any consideration of the absentee ballot harvesting, seeking to limit public knowledge to the recount tally only. More concerning still, the Oklahoma State Election Board, who is charged with turning over evidence of absentee ballot harvesting to the district attorney’s office for prosecution, is aiding the Standridge campaign in seeking to suppress full disclosure of these potential crimes and other irregularities, thus preventing Oklahomans from understanding the complete truth of what transpired.

###

Key Case Filings:

• Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction

• Brief in Support of Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction

• Appendix - Volume I

• Appendix - Volume II