The Supreme Court refused to consider the Tulsa Recall case. With all due respect to the legal filings the one thing (IMO) of why the court would refuse to hear the arguments, was the scope of the case was embossed in a multi-choices of premises that were so intertwined that a opinion would have been very complex to be written, even if it could have been addressed. The court generally will not deal on fundamentals that contain assumptions or presumptions or hidden meanings. It is at the discretion of the court to demand that the cases they hear follow a strait line of thought so when they issue an opinion then it is issued on the rule of law.
The premises of the instant case of the election being held on the recall issue possibly would have had better standing if it dealt on items that were silent in the charter, reverting them to the state statutes whereas, this would have been the single issue on the table before the court. On such an issue they could have issued a strait line opinion.
They would have only to decide if the causes listed in the statutes to recall a public official would apply.