utmost diligence in asserting in a proper forum their claimed rights. "T5 Laches may bar the right to challenge the balloting process. Although the time 'has long passed since this Court, when presented with a timely constitutional challenge, will refuse to address a blatantly unconstitutional measure to prevent the costly expenditure of public revenues on needless elections, the challenge must be timely made. In re: Legislative Referendum No. 334, State Question 711, 2004 OK 75, ¶¶ 4-5, 107 P.3d 556 (Kauger, J., concurring specially) (footnotes omitted). T7 Additionally, this Court has long acknowledged the right to challenge the balloting process in other election matters may be lost by unreasonable delay. See, e.g., Evans v. State Election Bd., 1990 OK 132, ¶¶ 12-16, 804 P.2d 1125 (<HOLDING>); Wickersham v. State Election Bd., 1960 OK
holding challenge to election boards ruling 115 days later and postelection challenge to a deceased individuals inclusion on the ballot barred by laches holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance holding constitutional challenge to section 93991 raised for the first time on appeal was barred holding that challenge to state proceeding was barred by younger even if it was not barred by rookerfeldman holding that the defendant waived the right to challenge a suppression ruling on appeal