SJR 34: Oklahoma judicial reform

The Oklahoma State House of Representatives is considering SJR 34, a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to change Oklahoma's nominating process for state appeals courts to match the federal method: Nomination by the chief executive with the advice and consent of the legislature. This would put the entire process of choosing members of the Court of Civil Appeals, Court of Criminal Appeals, and State Supreme Court, and filling vacancies in district courts, into the hands of elected officials who are directly accountable to the voters.

The current system lacks this accountability: When a vacancy occurs, a 15-member Judicial Nominating Commission fields applications and gives the Governor three candidates to choose from. The JNC consists of six members appointed by the Governor (or the previous governor; the terms are staggered), six members elected by attorneys who are members of the Oklahoma Bar Association, one member each appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate and the Speaker of the State House, and the 15th member appointed by the other 14. The members chosen by the Governor and by the OBA come from the 1967 congressional district boundaries, notwithstanding the shifts in population (particularly the growth of the two main metro areas relative to the rest of the state) in the intervening 56 years.

Even in the selection of JNC members, the Governor's hands are tied: Only three of his six appointees may come from the same political party. No such restriction is placed on the members chosen by the private lawyers' club.

Those six members are:

District 1: Mary Quinn Cooper, McAfee & Taft, major donor to Democratic candidates such as State Rep. Suzanne Schrieber and congressional candidates Kendra Horn, Brad Carson, Kojo Asamoa-Caesar.

District 2: Weldon Stout, Jr., Muskogee, also principally a donor to Democrat candidates

District 3: James Bland, McAlester, does not show up as a political donor.

District 4: David Butler, Lawton, also principally a donor to Democrat candidates. (There is an Enid attorney with the same name, different middle initial, who is also a Democrat donor.)

District 5: Joel Hall, Oklahoma City, gave $500 20 years ago to a Republican running for Corporation Commissioner

District 6: David K. Petty, Guymon, is a consistent donor to state and national Democrat candidates, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the DCCC and DSCC.

You must be a member of the private lawyers' club to have a vote for the only 6 seats on the commission for attorneys. In fact, you have to be a member of the private lawyers' club to practice law in Oklahoma. You may recall that in 2017, the Oklahoma Bar Association sponsored a "President's Cruise" to the oppressive, Communist island prison known as Cuba, putting cash (ultimately coming from Oklahomans unfortunate enough to interact with the judicial system) into the hands of the brutal regime that tramples on human rights and jails its dissidents.

SJR 34 passed the Senate 32-14, passed out of the House Rules Committee with a 6-3 vote, and is now waiting for a vote on the floor of the State House. There is a hitch, however: The engrossed Senate version follows the federal pattern of advice and consent from the Senate only, while the House Rules Committee substitute would require a judicial nomination to pass the House as well as the Senate. If the current House floor version passes, either the Senate would have to agree to the House version, or there would be a conference committee followed by final votes on the compromise version in each chamber.

OCPA points out:

Unlike the U.S. Constitution's checks and balances, Oklahoma Supreme Court justices are not truly selected and vetted by your elected officials.

In reality, justices are selected and vetted by Oklahoma's unelected Judicial Nominating Commission, guided by a small network of lawyers from the state Bar Association.

The end result has been that Oklahoma's left-leaning Supreme Court keeps legislating from the bench and throwing out conservative reforms.

The OCPA is providing an online form to help you contact your State Representative to encourage support for SJR 34.

There may have been a day where partisan differences did not matter in the courtroom, but now partisan affiliation is predictive of differences in judicial philosophy. Republicans are the party of original intent and judicial restraint. An attorney who backs Democrats to control the Federal government is pushing for judges who will make up the rules and rewrite laws according to their ideological preferences; who will implement Lenin's "Who? Whom?" approach to justice, with a big dollop of DEI ladled on top.

If the proposed amendment is approved by the voters, the OBA could still voice their opinions of judges and justices nominated by the Governor, just as the ABA comments on Federal court nominees. While Kevin Stitt has managed some great appointments to the State Supreme Court, despite the JNC's leftist tilt, we need our elected Chief Executive to have a free hand to choose Oklahoma's version of a Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, without the interference of a left-leaning private lawyers' club.

MORE: The application page has links to judicial district maps for State Supreme Court, State Court of Criminal Appeals, State Court of Civil Appeals, and District Courts.

STILL MORE: Back in January, OCPA's Ray Carter reported: "Oklahoma defies the trend noted of more conservative jurists being appointed in southern states. The median state supreme court PAJID score in Oklahoma has been between 70 and 75, reflecting a strong liberal slant, throughout almost the entirety of the 49-year period reviewed, only dipping slightly in recent years." The PAJID scores, a measure designed by researchers at Auburn University and the University of Georgia, were published in the December 2023 edition of the journal "State Politics & Policy Quarterly," a publication of the American Political Science Association.

That same OCPA report provided a more comprehensive analysis of the political contributions of JNC members since 2000:

Of the 32 individuals appointed to the JNC by the Oklahoma Bar Association from 2000 to today, 22 bar-association appointees (nearly 69 percent) have directed most of their campaign donations to Democrats, based on information obtained from public filings maintained by the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, and Federal Election Commission filings and state records that are searchable on the nonprofit Open Secrets website.

Only one bar appointee to the JNC since 2000 has overwhelmingly donated to Republican candidates.

Furthermore, from 2000 to today, eight individuals who have chaired the JNC have been donors to Democratic campaigns.

In addition, Oklahoma's Judicial Nominating Commission operates without transparency. The group does not hold public meetings. The group does not interview candidates in public. And the commission does not reveal how members vote on judicial nominees. Research conducted by the 1889 Institute in 2019 found that Oklahoma's JNC is among the most secretive in the nation.

MORE: Oklahomans for Life has been calling for judicial nomination reform for many years, because leftist justices have been obstacles to the desire of a majority of Oklahomans to protect unborn children:

Please send an email to houserepub@okforlife.org to urge support for SJR 34.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has long been notoriously unsupportive of protecting the lives of unborn children. Before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, the Oklahoma Supreme Court repeatedly struck down or blocked enforcement of pro-life laws which were widely viewed by others as constitutional under Roe v. Wade - laws providing reasonable regulation of abortion in ways that did not prevent abortion.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision ruled there is no so-called "right" to abortion under the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has continued to strike down or block enforcement of newly enacted Oklahoma pro-life laws. To many observers, the actions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court majority have been arbitrary and capricious and reveal a deep pro-abortion bias.

The method of appointing Oklahoma's Supreme Court justices has been highly problematic in the eyes of pro-life Oklahomans. A committee over which the Oklahoma Bar Association exerts very heavy influence selects three nominees, and the Governor is required to pick one of the three. Given that the American Bar Association has adopted an official position in support of abortion, it is not surprising that laws protecting Oklahoma's unborn children have not found favor with our state Supreme Court.

Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 34, pending in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, would allow the people of Oklahoma to vote on a method of selecting our Supreme Court justices which closely mirrors the federal system - nomination of a justice whom the Governor believes to be highly qualified, with confirmation by the Oklahoma legislature.

Please send one email to houserepub@okforlife.org to reach members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and urge support for SJR 34. Ask Representatives to allow Oklahoma voters to adopt the U.S. Constitution's method of picking Supreme Court justices.