Time magazine called it one of the most shocking judicial scandals in U.S. history.
In the mid-1960s, three Oklahoma Supreme Court justices were implicated in a far-reaching bribery and corruption scheme. Two of them resigned. The third was impeached.
Hoping to restore public trust in the judicial system, Oklahoma lawmakers proposed an overhaul. Instead of running for election, judicial candidates would apply for the bench via an independent Judicial Nominating Commission. The commission would then vet candidates and forward its top three choices to the governor for a final decision.
Oklahoma voters approved the idea, via State Question 447, in July 1967.
Nearly 60 years later, the Legislature is asking voters to consider changing the state Constitution to restructure the Judicial Nominating Commission. State Question 845 proposes eliminating party-balancing requirements and restrictions on certain members being an attorney, or having an immediate family member who is an attorney, among other provisions. The measure will appear on the Nov. 3 general election ballot.
To assist Oklahoma voters with research ahead of election day, Oklahoma Watch compiled the following information about SQ 845 through interviews, research and public statements.
What Does the Judicial Nominating Commission Do?
The 15-member Judicial Nominating Commission vets candidates seeking to fill vacancies on the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals and Court of Civil Appeals. It also considers applications for district court judgeships when a vacancy occurs outside of an election cycle.
Following interviews, the commission submits three names to the governor for a final decision. If they do not act within 60 days, the chief justice of the Supreme Court decides.
Appointments to the Judicial Nominating Commission are split as follows:
- The Oklahoma Bar Association elects six attorney members, one from each of the state’s six congressional districts as they existed in 1967. These members serve six-year terms, staggered at two-year intervals.
- The governor appoints six members to serve staggered six-year terms. These members cannot be a licensed attorney or have an immediate family member licensed to practice law in any state. No more than three of them may belong to the same political party.
- The House speaker, Senate president pro tempore and at least eight commission members each select one at-large member to serve a two-year term. No more than two of three at-large members may belong to the same political party.
Additional rules look to mitigate conflicts of interest. Members may not succeed themselves and cannot hold any elected or appointed position within a political party. They are also barred from seeking nomination as a judge within five years of serving on the commission.
Meetings are closed to the public, though the commission announces when candidates are considered and accepts public comment.
Do Other States Have a Similar Judicial Selection Model?
Yes. At least 30 states and the District of Columbia utilize a judicial nominating commission, according to the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, though the structure of these commissions varies. Some states do not require the governor to select a commission-referred candidate, while others only fill vacancies in between elections.
What Changes Does SQ 845 Propose?
SQ 845 removes all political party balancing restrictions, as well as the prohibition on attorneys and immediate family members of attorneys from filling at-large and lay member vacancies.
The measure also allows commission members to succeed themselves, with a maximum consecutive term of 12 years.
Finally, SQ 845 requires the Oklahoma Bar Association to select its six members using congressional boundaries at the time of appointment, rather than those in effect in 1967. Oklahoma currently has five congressional seats, meaning one district would be allotted two members.
Who Supports SQ 845, and Why?
Republican members of the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of sending SQ 845 to the ballot. They say that SQ 845 would expand the pool of eligible candidates and improve political balance on the commission.
While presenting the measure on the Senate floor, Sen. Todd Gollihare, R-Sapulpa, said political party balancing restrictions have put Republicans at a disadvantage. He said the Oklahoma Bar Association tends to lean left, a sentiment the organization denies but many Republican lawmakers hold true, prompting the need for change.
“In a supermajority state, where Republicans have the governorship and a majority in the House as well as the Senate, the third branch has influence that’s not really equitable to the majority party,” Gollihare said.
Sen. Julie Daniels, a Republican from Bartlesville who has supported unsuccessful efforts to eliminate the Judicial Nominating Commission, described SQ 845 as mild reform.
“We have very few boards and commissions that have these party limits,” Daniels said on the Senate floor. “And I believe the idea that attorneys could stack the deck is far-fetched.”
Who is Opposed to SQ 845, and Why?
Senate Democrats voted against sending SQ 845 to the ballot. They say the proposed changes threaten to inject more partisanship into an institution that’s proven reliable over several decades.
Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt, D-Oklahoma City, said SQ 845 chips away at the integrity of Oklahoma’s judicial selection process.
“Allowing for complete domination by one party is concerning,” Kirt said. “I think we know that government needs to at least be bipartisan, if not also inclusive of independents and folks from other parties. That [political party balancing] was built into it on purpose.”
Debating against SQ 845 on the Senate floor, Sen. Carri Hicks, D-Oklahoma City, also took issue with removing the attorney-affiliation restrictions.
“This makes it easier for a small group aligned by party or profession to control who is nominated for the bench,” Hicks said. “We’re not arguing against modernizing language. We are arguing against weakening protections meant to ensure Oklahomans can trust their judiciary to be fair, impartial and independent.”
Have Oklahoma Voters Ever Modified the Judicial Nominating Commission?
The structure of the Judicial Nominating Commission last changed in 2010, when voters approved adding two at-large members and prohibiting nonlawyer members from having an attorney in their immediate family.
In 2022, Oklahoma lawmakers considered a constitutional amendment to abolish the Judicial Nominating Commission and replace it with a federal-style appointment model, but the measure stalled in the final weeks of the legislative session.
If Approved, When Would SQ 845 Take Effect?
SQ 845 would take effect as commission terms expire.
For instance, the terms of two governor-appointed commission members expire in October 2027. If SQ 845 passes, the governor would not be bound by political party or attorney affiliation restrictions when selecting a commissioner.
Has Anyone Started Lobbying For or Against SQ 845?
As of Sept. 18, no committee had filed with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to advocate for or against SQ 845. Independent expenditure groups had also not reported any spending on the measure.
This article first appeared on Oklahoma Watch and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.