With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the district court on March 1, 2016. While Plaintiffs/Appellants bided their time, the date of the election drew ever closer. T5 The Legislature has not provided any statutory timeframe for a pre-election constitutional challenge to legislative referendums, as it has done with initiative petitions in the form of 84 0.8. Supp. 2015 § 8(B) In fact, Title 34 makes no mention of constitutional challenges to legislative referendums at all. The same is not true of challenges to the ballot titles of legislative referendums, where 34 0.8. Supp. 2015 $ 10 specifically prohibits appeals concerning the ballot titles of constitutional and legislative enactments proposed by the legislature. T6 Regardless, this Court has previously stressed the importance of timeliness , 197 Okla. 291, 170 P.2d 208 (<HOLDING>). T8 The lengthy delay between the Governor's

A: holding that the burden is on the petitioner for the writ of habeas corpus to show that the exclusion applies and that the extraordinary circumstances alleged rather than a lack of diligence on his part were the proximate cause of the untimeliness
B: holding trustee liable for failure to discharge his duty to watch the investment with reasonable care and diligence
C: recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties
D: 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
D.