COMPLICATED, WOULD REQUIRE A DETAILED REVIEW OF THE TULSA CITY CHARTER, AND COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN "AVERAGE" REQUEST. CONSIDERABLY MORE TIME THAN IS AVAILABLE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO YOUR LETTER.
I CAN ONLY SUGGEST THAT IF YOU FEEL THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN TULSA WAS INCORRECT IN HIS RULING IN THE JACKSON CASE, THE BEST AVAILABLE AVENUE OF RECOURSE WOULD BE FOR THE PARTIES TO APPEAL THAT RULING, AND TO ASK EITHER THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THE CITY, PROHIBITING IT FROM HOLDING THE ELECTION AS SCHEDULED. CERTAINLY, THIS OFFICE HAS NO POWER TO PREVENT THE HOLDING OF THE ELECTION, AND ANY HOPE BY THE PARTIES THAT SUCH IS THE CASE IS IN ERROR.
I REALIZE THAT THIS LETTER WILL NOT SATISFY YOUR DESIRES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN OPINION, AND REGRET THAT THIS OFFICE CANNOT ASSIST YOU AS REQUESTED. HOWEVER, I KNOW OF NO OTHER WAY TO HANDLE THIS MATTER WITHOUT VIOLATING BOTH CLEAR STATUTORY LIMITATIONS PLACED BY THE LEGISLATURE UPON THE POWER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE LONGSTANDING POLICIES OF THIS OFFICE RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF OPINIONS.
(MICHAEL SCOTT FERN)