On February 3, 2026, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the district court decision which found the referendum petition to be insufficient. The gist statement was determined to be flawed for not including details about triggering events which would end the TIF.
The Chief Justice was the lone dissenting opinion. He argued that the right to a referendum is a "fundamental" citizen right that should not have been blocked over these technicalities.
As reported in nondoc.com
“Comparison of the plan, the ordinance and the gist demonstrates that the gist accurately summarizes the governing documents. Protestants simply take issue with how that summary is presented,” Rowe wrote. “The ordinance and the plan are both of great textual complexity and were undoubtedly drafted by lawyers specialized in municipal finance law. To find that the gist is misleading we must conclude the governing documents it summarizes are misleading.”
As for the gist not outlining all three ways the sales tax and property tax TIFs could terminate, Rowe cited the court’s decision
regarding State Question 809, when the court ruled “the gist is not required to include ‘every regulatory detail so long as its outline is not incorrect.'”
“Upon review, the gist is not inaccurate, misleading, and is certainly not fraudulent. It synthesizes the technically complex governing documents that — in themselves — are difficult to decipher,” Rowe said. “The gist is not required to resolve such technical complexities — rather it is tasked with providing signatories a fair outline of the measure’s substance to prevent fraud, deceit, or corruption.”
The legal requirements for GIST statements are subject to interpretation.
The requirement for the gist statement are vague. The gist is supposed to summarize the item in question, and is not required to give every detail. How much detail is sufficient is left to judicial interpretation after signatures have been collected. This puts a heavy and risky burden on citizens who wish to utilize the referendum process.
Judge Kuehn wrote: “Because of the sanctity of that right, the power of initiative and referendum ‘should not be crippled, avoided, or denied by technical construction by the courts.'” “A challenger ‘bears a heavy burden to establish any infirmity’ with a petition and any doubt is resolved in favor of the petition.”
Chief Justice Rowe disagreed: “I cannot accept that proponents’ gist is so inadequate as to deprive the voters of their constitutional right to vote — up or down — on the ordinance.” “I would allow the ordinance to go to a vote of the people.”
What happens next?
Cleveland County Commissioners have been moving forward with the plan, even before the Supreme Court decision on the referendum was decided.
On October 3, 2025 the County Commissioners signed an agreement to extend the timelines in the Economic Development Agreement by the amount of time between the filing of the litigation against the referendum (November 18, 2024) and the Supreme Court Decision. This means the project plan has a delay of 442 days or 14 months and 2 weeks.
On December 15, 2025, the Recreation and Entertainment Facilities Authority accepted two bids for the design, construction and operations of the Arena from Legends Global and OVG/Populace/Flintco. These are under review by Hunden Partners and Floyd and Driver.
On February 17, the County approved payments to Hunden Partners for advisory services for January ($40,000) and to MuniCap, Inc for assessment services to evaluate the tax increment in the TIF district ($10,000, initial Phase 1 upfront payment).
What is City Council's next move to assure a public vote?
Norman City Council will explore options regarding the Rock Creek Entertainment District TIF ordinance at a study session on February 17, 2026. Stay tuned...
