Exactly. The Secretary of State in OK needs to ignore the stay, certify the results and tell this judge, "Lady, I don't work for you."
The judge has authority to find a State law violates constitutional rights. That is the basis offered here by those behind the lawsuit. If Oklahoma passed a law that said that Islam is not permitted to be practiced in the state, it would violate the First Amendment.The judge could overturn it.
That being said, state judges in Oklahoma are required to apply the law of the state as determined by the legislature. It does not interfere with the complainant's religious freedom to require state judge's to apply only Oklahoma State law. To me it is similar to prosecuting parents who withhold medical treatment to their kids on religious grounds. The state does not allow their unique religious beliefs to excuse child neglect. Here the referendum was really unnecesary because Sharia was not being applied in Oklahoma. But, it did serve the purpose of preventing some goofy judge from applying it in the future.
In any event, the issuance of a temporary injunction is only to prevent enforcement of the law until a final determination is made on the merits. However, in order to issue such a preliminary injunction the court must have decided that the complainant's case has a likelihood of success on the merits. That is a bad sign for the ultimate outcome at this level.Judge Miles-Lagrange is a liberal who will rule with the complainant in this case regardless of how specious his argument is. The Tenth Circuit will likely reverse IMHO.