Oklahoma Election 2026: October 2026 Archives

All Oklahoma voters will have 9 judicial retention questions on the November 3, 2026, ballot. Unlike district judges, where competitors run in non-partisan elections, justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and judges on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals are appointed, but face a yes-or-no retention ballot every six years. (I think unopposed district judges should also face a retention ballot.)

Oklahoma has two separate appeals systems. Civil cases go through the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals and can be appealed from there to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, while the Court of Criminal Appeals is the apex of Oklahoma's criminal court system. (Here is a flowchart showing how these appellate courts are related to one another and to district and municipal courts.)

Every appeals judge or justice is appointed by the governor from a list of three provided by the Judicial Nominating Commission, a panel of 15 consisting of six attorneys selected by the Communist-enabling Oklahoma Bar Association, six non-attorneys appointed by the Governor (of which only three can be Republican), and three further non-lawyer members appointed by those twelve.

Passage of SQ 845 would give a conservative governor a more conservative Judicial Nominating Commission and should result in a more conservative list of candidates from which Governor Mazzei can choose as he fills court vacancies.

A newly appointed Supreme Court justice or appellate judge faces a retention ballot at the next general election, and once again at the general election when the term for his seat expires (which may be two, four, or six years later), then voters have the opportunity to oust him every six years thereafter. The next retention elections, in the absence of a resignation, death, or new appointment:

2026 (cycle 1): Supreme Court 1, 6, 9; Civil Appeals Districts 1, 2; Criminal Appeals District 2, 3
2028 (cycle 2): Supreme Court 2, 5, 8; Civil Appeals Districts 3, 4; Criminal Appeals District 1
2030 (cycle 3): Supreme Court 3, 4, 7; Civil Appeals Districts 5, 6; Criminal Appeals District 4, 5

Cycle = ( (Election Year - 1910) / 2 ) modulo 3

An office will be on the ballot off-cycle when a vacancy occurs and a replacement is appointed, as with Supreme Court District 4 Justice Travis Jett, appointed in 2025 to replace ousted Justice Yvonne Kauger. If retained, Jett will face the voters again in 2030.

Less frequently, an office will not be on the ballot when its term expires because a judge has decided not to file for retention. That's the case this year with Court of Criminal Appeals District 3 Judge Gary Lumpkin; instead, the governor will appoint a replacement this year who will be on the ballot at the next general election in 2028 and then, if retained, will be on the ballot again when the District 3 term expires in 2032.

I was puzzled that Civil Appeals Judge Jim Huber, who was appointed to the court in 2023 and on the 2024 retention ballot would be on the ballot again just two years later. That puzzlement led me to dig deeper, to notice that the law establishing the retention ballot for this court, 20 O. S. 30.18, like the constitutional changes instituting the retention ballot for the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals, continued the existing fixed, staggered six-year terms for each office. From past election results and this helpful list of past Criminal Appeals judges showing each year that a judge was re-elected, a pattern emerged, which you see above.

In the 58-year history of Oklahoma's judicial retention elections, only one judge or justice has ever been turned out of office by the voters: Supreme Court Justice Yvonne Kauger in 2024.

Here is the list of appellate judges on the 2026 retention ballot. In parentheses, I list age on election day, county of residence, appointing governor, year of appointment, and party of voter registration, followed by my recommendation at this point.

Supreme Court

• District 1: M. John Kane (64, Osage, Stitt, 2019, R): YES
• District 4: Travis V. Jett (42, Woodward, Stitt, 2025, R): YES
• District 6: Dana Kuehn (55, Tulsa, Stitt, 2021, R): YES
• District 9: Richard B. Darby (68, Jackson, Fallin, 2018, R): NO

Court of Criminal Appeals

• District 2: Robert L. Hudson (69, Logan, Fallin, 2015, R): YES

Court of Civil Appeals

• District 1, Office 1: Stacie L. Hixon (52, Tulsa, Stitt, 2020, R): YES
• District 1, Office 2: Jane P. Wiseman (79, Tulsa, Henry, 2005, D): NO
• District 2, Office 1: Deborah B. Barnes (72, Osage, Henry, 2008, D): NO
• District 2, Office 2: James R. Huber (58, Tulsa, Stitt, R): YES

(Recommendations for the competitive, non-partisan elections for District Judge in the Tulsa area will be in a separate entry.)

Jamison Faught, the Muskogee Politico, has published his judicial retention picks for 2026. We differ only on Justice Darby, but neither of us consider Darby's retention a clear-cut choice.

I haven't yet seen a column about this year's retention ballot from former State Rep. Jason Murphey, but his 2024 column provides helpful perspective on the damage to our courts perpetrated by Brad Henry's eight years as governor. A lefty-lawyer Democrat in the governor's office being fed nominees by a lefty-driven JNC is a bad combination for justice.

After the jump, the basis of the recommendations.

Once again, Oklahoma voters are being asked to place a lengthy and detailed piece of legislation in our State Constitution which properly belongs in a more easily amendable statute. The Constitution withholds the authority to regulate and adjust exemptions, valuations, and tax rates except as very specifically provided in bloated Article X. Nevertheless, State Question 847 would grant all Oklahomans additional protection against tax increases by inflation and would expand the universe of senior citizens granted additional relief. For that reason, I'm voting YES on SQ 847.

Your property tax bill is the product of two numbers: The assessed value times the total millage rate (in mills per dollar, i.e., dollars per thousand dollars) that you've authorized your local taxing authorities to take. The assessed value is the fair cash value times an assessment rate (11% in Tulsa County), minus the homestead exemption ($1,000), if the property is a homestead.

where

• FCV = fair cash value
• AR = assessment ratio (a constant in Tulsa County = 11%)
• HE = homestead exemption (a constant = $1,000; low-income homeowners qualify for an additional $1,000 homestead exemption)
• TM = total millage (the sum of property tax rates affecting the property -- school, city, county, library, health department, community college, technology center, etc.)

AR and HE have been constant for a long time and are unlikely to change. Practically speaking, your taxes will go up or (rarely) down depending on changes in fair cash value and total millage. Total millage will go up if there's a new school bond issue or if your city or county government has to pay a lawsuit settlement. Fair cash value depends on the market, as interpreted by the County Assessor. When demand causes local home prices to skyrocket, you become liable for higher taxes based on gains you can't realize without selling your home.

To protect taxpayers from tax hikes caused by housing inflation, in 1996 Oklahoma voters approved a 5% cap on the annual increase in fair cash value and a valuation freeze for senior citizens with gross incomes below $25,000 (SQ 677). This was the origin of the two sections (8B and 8C) of Article X that would be changed by SQ 847. In 2005, voters increased the income limit for the senior citizen valuation freeze to the estimated median income for the county or metro area, as reported by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (SQ 714). In 2012, voters reduced the cap on the annual increase in fair cash value for homestead properties to 3% (SQ 758).

SQ 847 would cut the general cap on fair cash value increase from from 5% to 4%, the homestead cap from 3% to 1.75%. It would also graduate the phase-out of the senior valuation freeze: Instead of a hard cutoff at the median income, there would be four brackets based on estimated median income (EMI), reducing the increase cap to zero as income goes down:

• 100%-120% of EMI: 0.35% cap on annual FCV increase


• 120%-140% of EMI: 0.70% cap


• 140%-160% of EMI: 1.05% cap


• 160%-180% of EMI: 1.40% cap

HUD doesn't quite use the same terminology as the Oklahoma Constitution. Median Family Income in the Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as issued by HUD for Fiscal Year 2026, is $95,000. Here is the page for 2026 data, and here is a direct link to the spreadsheet. Assuming that number is being used, senior households with gross incomes below $171,000 would get some additional relief beyond that which would apply to all homeowners.

That was the gist of the gist. Here is the 304-word "gist" of SQ 847, as it will appear on your November 3, 2026, ballot.

STATE QUESTION NO. 847 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 381

This measure amends article 10, sections 8B and 8C of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Currently, section 8B limits annual growth in fair cash value to 5% for most real property or 3% for homesteads and agricultural land. If approved, the measure would limit annual growth in fair cash value for tax year 2027 and after to 4% for most real property or 1.75% for homesteads and agricultural land. Currently, section 8C prohibits any increase in fair cash value of homestead property for persons age sixty-five (65) or older whose income does not exceed certain limits, sometimes referred to as the senior freeze. Instead of prohibiting any increase in fair cash value for these homesteads, there would be an annual limit of 1.75%. The measure eliminates the income cap on gross household income to qualify for the senior freeze. If approved, the annual limit on an increase in fair cash value would be tied to how much gross household income the homestead owner had in the preceding year. If a homeowner's gross household income from the previous year was at or below the median income for their county or area (as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's estimated median income amount for the county or metropolitan statistical area), a homeowner's homestead fair cash value cannot be increased. If the income amount was in excess of certain thresholds, the limit on increases in fair cash value for homesteads owned by persons age 65 or older could be 0.35% (income over 100% up to 120%); 0.7% (income over 120% up to 140%); 1.05% (income over 140% up to 160%); 1.4% (income over 160% up to 180%); or 1.75% (income over 180%). If passed, this measure would have a fiscal impact on the state, but the exact impact is unknown.

Shall the proposal be approved?

Although I hate including this kind of statutory detail in the State Constitution, a recent Oklahoma Supreme Court decision (read below regarding SQ 843 for the details) means any property tax relief will require spelling it out in the Constitution, at least until we end the activist majority on the court.

Because we're all about the details here at BatesLine, here is the text of Article X, Sections 8B and 8C as they would be modified by passage of SQ 847, with deleted text struck through, added text underlined, and everything else unchanged:

SQ 845 is a half-measure, but this half-measure is better than none. The Oklahoma Constitution grants a formal role to the Oklahoma Bar Association, a left-leaning private cartel, in filtering appellate court nominees in Oklahoma, unelected and unaccountable figures restricting the choices available to the duly elected governor. State Question 845, one of two statewide referenda on the Oklahoma November 3, 2026, general election ballot, doesn't eliminate that filter or the cartel's involvement, but it does make it possible for conservative lawyers to be involved in the nomination process, something effectively impossible under current law.

SQ 845 would make minor changes to the membership of the board that provides the governor with his options for filling judicial vacancies. It would not correct two very big problems with the judicial nominating process and the private, left-wing organization embedded in that process. SQ 845 was proposed by the legislature as HJR 1024. (I discussed the problems with the current judicial nomination process in this 2024 article in support of reform.)

On July 11, 1967, Oklahoma voters narrowly approved SQ 447, which added a new Article 7B to the Oklahoma Constitution, completely revamping the method of selecting appellate judges, creating a Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) to nominate appointees for the Court of Civil Appeals, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court and to fill vacancies in District Courts between elections. (The vote was Yes 86,183, 52.1%; No 79,280, 47.9%) This was a reaction to the 1965 revelation that multiple Oklahoma Supreme Court justices had received bribes over more than two decades. In 2010, voters approved SQ 752 (Yes 606,805, 62.8%; No 358,925, 37.2%), which tweaked the composition of the JNC to include two additional non-lawyer, at-large members and to ban relatives of attorneys from serving in the "lay member" seats on the JNC.

The "professionalization" of the judiciary replaced partisan direct election of appellate judges and justices with appointments made through a complex process involving the Oklahoma Bar Association, even though none of the reforms directly addressed the causes of the scandal. A commission, composed of non-lawyers appointed by the Governor and lawyers appointed by the Oklahoma Bar Association, chooses three nominees to place before the Governor, who may appoint one of those three. The voters don't get to weigh in on the new appellate judge or justice until the next general election, when they have an up-or-down vote to retain or dismiss the new judge. (District and Associate District Judge appointees serve until the next judicial election, when they file and run as normal and may face opponents.) Voters have voted against retention only once, dismissing Supreme Court Justice Yvonne Kauger in the 2024 election.

Here is the text of Article VII-B, Section 3, as it would be amended by SQ 845, with additions shown as underlined text and deletions as strikethrough:

Section 3. (a) There is established as a part of the Judicial Department a Judicial Nominating Commission of fifteen (15) members, to consist of:

(1) six members to be appointed by the Governor, which shall include at least one from each congressional district established by the Statutes of Oklahoma and existing at the date of the adoption of this Article, none of whom shall be admitted to practice law in the State of Oklahoma or have any immediate family member who has been admitted to the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma or any other state as such congressional districts exist as of the date of the appointment. Each member appointed pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph shall serve a term of six (6) years;

(2) six members, which shall include at least one from each congressional district established by the Statutes of Oklahoma and existing at the date of the adoption of this Article as such congressional districts exist as of the date of the selection who are, however, members of the Oklahoma Bar Association and who have been elected by the other active members of their district under procedures adopted by the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association, until changed by statute. Each member appointed pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph shall serve a term of six (6) years; and

(3) three members at large who shall not have been admitted to the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma or any other state or have any immediate family member who has been admitted to the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma or any other state but who each of whom shall be a resident of the State of Oklahoma, one to be selected by not less than eight members of the Nominating Commission. In the event eight members of the Commission cannot agree upon the member at large within thirty (30) days of the initial organization of the Commission or within thirty (30) days of a vacancy in the member at large position, the Governor shall make the appointment of the member at large; one to be selected by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate; and one to be selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. No more than two members at large shall belong to any one political party. Each member appointed pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph shall serve a term of two (2) years.

(b) The Commission shall elect one of its members to serve as chair for a term of one (1) year.

(c) The six lay members of the Commission who are appointed by the Governor shall be appointed within ninety (90) days from the date that this Article becomes effective. Two members shall be appointed for a term of two (2) years, two members for a term of four (4) years, and two members for a term of six (6) years. The Oklahoma Bar Association shall hold its election and certify to the Secretary of State its members within ninety (90) days from the effective date of this Article, two of whom shall be elected for a term of two (2) years, two for a term of four (4) years, and two for a term of six (6) years. Thereafter all All of the members of the Commission, whether elected or appointed, shall serve for a term of six (6) years, except that the member at large shall serve for a term of two (2) years.

(b) (d) Vacancies arising during the term of any lay commissioner, other than the member at large, shall be filled by appointment by the Governor for the remainder of his or her term. Vacancies of any lawyer commissioner in positions elected pursuant to the procedures established by the Oklahoma Bar Association shall be filled by the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association for the remainder of his or her the applicable term.

(c) (e) In the event of vacancy in any of the member at large position positions, the said vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the original selection.

(d) Of those Commissioners named by the Governor, not more than three shall belong to any one political party.

(e) (f) The concurrence of the majority of Commissioners in office at the time shall be sufficient to decide any question, unless otherwise provided herein. The Commission shall have jurisdiction to determine whether the qualifications of nominees to hold Judicial Office have been met and to determine the existence of vacancies on the Commission.

(f) (g) No Commissioner, while a member of the Commission, shall hold any other public office by election or appointment or any official position in a political party and he or she shall not be eligible, while a member of the Commission and for five (5) years thereafter, for nomination as a Judicial Officer.

(g) (h) Commissioners shall serve without compensation but the Legislature shall provide funds to reimburse them for their necessary travel and lodging expenses while performing their duties as such Commissioners.

(h) No Commissioner shall be permitted to succeed himself or herself serve more than twelve (12) consecutive years, whether elected or appointed.

(i) As used herein, the words "Oklahoma Bar Association" shall include any successor thereof and any future form of the organized Bar of this state.

(j) The modifications to the provisions of this section pursuant to Enrolled House Joint Resolution No. 1024 of the 2nd Session of the 60th Oklahoma Legislature shall be applicable to any position on the Judicial Nominating Commission that ends by expiration of the term of office or by vacancy.

The gist that will appear on the ballot:

This measure amends Section 3 of Article 7-B of the Oklahoma Constitution. It changes provisions related to the Judicial Nominating Commission. It updates references so appointments made by certain persons based on the congressional districts would be made using the current congressional districts instead of the districts as the districts were constituted when this section of the Constitution was originally adopted in 1967. It removes a prohibition on certain members of the Commission so that the person could be a licensed attorney. It allows a person to serve on the Commission even if they have a member of their family who is a licensed attorney. It changes the terms so that with the exception of at-large members, the term would be for six (6) years. The at-large members would serve a two-year term. It removes restrictions based on political party membership. It removes a provision that prohibits a Commission member from succeeding himself or herself on the Commission. It provides that the changes in the way people are appointed or selected for membership on the Judicial Nominating Commission will apply to positions as they become vacant because an existing term of office expires or because of a vacancy.

The big win here is that our conservative governor will be able to appoint six conservative attorneys to serve on the JNC. Currently, the Governor has to split his precious appointments between Republicans and non-Republicans, and they all have to be non-attorneys and unrelated to any attorneys. If you assume that the liberal OBA membership will choose liberals for their six slots, and that the consensus choices for the at-large seats are unlikely to be conservatives, the best we can hope for are 3 conservatives amongst 15 JNC members. Although only six of the 15 members of the JNC are lawyers, it's easy to imagine that they would dominate the deliberations over the lay members of the commission.

You may argue that law and the courts shouldn't be ideological, and I wish that could be so, but the leftist Long March through the Institutions has infected the legal profession and the judiciary in the form of Critical Legal Studies and judicial activism.

To illustrate the absurdity of the situation: Former Attorney General John O'Connor would be someone I would trust to vet nominees from both a conservative legal perspective and the perspective of good judgment and judicial temperament. (I had the privilege of working closely with John during my six years of service, now concluded, on the Tulsa Classical Academy board, where John serves as the school's counsel.) Under current laws, John O'Connor would never be appointed to the JNC: The left-leaning OBA would not appoint a conservative, and the governor's nominees are not allowed to be attorneys.

One more win in SQ 845 is that the process will no longer use 1967 congressional district boundaries to ensure geographical balance. Oklahoma hasn't had six congressional districts since the 2000 census, and the population has shifted substantially toward the metro areas in the intervening 59 years.

Two years ago, there was a better approach to judicial nomination reform up for debate. SJR 34 (2024) would have replaced the JNC with an analogue of the system we use at the Federal level: Nomination by the Governor with the advice and consent of the State Senate and State House. That would put the process entirely in the hands of people who are directly accountable to the voters. Sadly, House RINOs linked arms with House Democrats to defeat SJR 34 by a vote of 36-60.

Ultimately, conservative Oklahomans need to remove liberal private cartels like the Oklahoma Bar Association from any role as gatekeepers to the legal profession. We need JNC removal, but for now, the best we can do is JNC reform, this minor improvement to the commission's composition which should allow for stronger conservative voices in the room when the qualifications of judicial candidates are being debated. SQ 845 is worth a YES vote.

MORE:

OCPA offers a summary of SQ 845 and SQ 847.