House Speaker-Elect announces new government efficiency portal

Speaker-Elect Announces New Government Efficiency Portal

OKLAHOMA CITY (Dec. 10th) – The Oklahoma House of Representatives today added to its transparency portal a government efficiency survey intended to root out duplication of services, waste and inefficiencies in state government. 

This initiative piggybacks on the federal effort to eliminate government waste through the newly-created federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

"We will work hand-in-hand with President-Elect Trump and our federal delegation on broader efforts to make government more efficient with DOGE," said House Speaker-Elect Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow. "We want to ensure our state government is working as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. As lawmakers, we want the assistance of Oklahomans who have first-hand experience with duplicative and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars."

Column: OK Supreme Court abortion ruling points to the need for judicial reform

I have often mentioned this train of thought in conversation with folks, and there have been whispers of pursuing this sort of reform in the legislature for over a decade, but... let's be honest, a liberal judiciary serves as a convenient "out" for legislators who lack the political will to accomplish needed change. Organizations and clubs that are not accountable to the voters should not be dictating the makeup of one-third of state government.

OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT ABORTION RULING POINTS TO THE NEED FOR JUDICIAL REFORM

Ryan Haynie | March 24, 2023

[Last month], the Oklahoma Supreme Court dropped a bombshell opinion wherein it found the Oklahoma Constitution protects the right to terminate a pregnancy to preserve the life of the mother. In the ultimate exercise of futility, it did so despite both statutes in question providing for that very exception. Rather than providing clarity on the state of Oklahoma’s abortion laws, the Court muddied the waters by finding a right it wasn’t asked to find and didn’t need to find, injecting itself into the policymaking process, and leaving the door wide open for abortion on demand should it decide it favors that policy down the road.

The first problem with the Court’s decision is its “discovery” of a constitutional right with precious little legal analysis. Where did it find this new constitutional right? For that, the Court relied on sections 2 and 7 of Article II of the Oklahoma constitution.” Those two sections state, “All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry,” and “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” respectively. With no analysis of what those provisions mean—much less what they meant to the people who ratified the Oklahoma Constitution more than 100 years ago—the Court’s majority decided that the right to terminate a pregnancy when the life of the mother is at stake is a constitutional right because a law permitting that exception to a prohibition on abortion existed before statehood.

All of the dissents took this conclusion to task, with Chief Justice Kane noting “[o]ur Constitution is a highly detailed enumeration of rights, not a broad, sweeping statement of concepts.” Justice Kuehn wrote a particularly compelling dissent, rightly noting, “[i]t is not the job of this Court to create a right where none exists,” and “[t]here simply is no language in our due process clause which includes any right to terminate a pregnancy.” She went on to note the lack of legal explanation for the Majority’s statement that “the Oklahoma Constitution ‘creates an inherent right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life.’”

But there is another problem with the opinion. Let’s imagine for a minute that the right to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of the mother was a fundamental right and not just a prudential judgment call for the legislature. In that case, the Supreme Court is not the appropriate policymaking body to decide how that “right” would be enforced or regulated. That decision is left to the legislature. In fact, you may be thinking, “I thought our abortion laws already had an exception for the life of the mother.” As mentioned previously, you would be correct. The law the Supreme Court struck down provided for an exception to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency.

This “medical emergency” concept was a bridge too far for the majority. Call me crazy, but I believe a threat to the life of the mother is a medical emergency. I certainly hope the people around me believe a threat to my life is a medical emergency. Here, too, Justice Keuhn was particularly persuasive, writing, “[e]ven if I agreed with the Majority that the Oklahoma Constitution provides a limited right to termination of pregnancy to preserve the life of the mother, I could not agree with the Majority’s attempt to define that phrase . . . that task belongs to either the people or their legislative representatives.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, the Court seems to be leaving room for a complete and unfettered right to an abortion in the future. Because while the Court refused to find one of the abortion laws unconstitutional, it deferred on the question of whether the Oklahoma Constitution has anything to say about a right to elective abortions generally. If that seems wholly unreasonable, Justice Rowe agrees. He writes, “[t]he majority claims that it makes no ruling on whether the Oklahoma Constitution provides a right to an elective termination of pregnancy, yet the majority rejects the constitutional challenge to 21 O.S. § 861, which explicitly prohibits elective abortions.”

If the above-mentioned constitutional provisions provide a right to terminate a pregnancy to save the mother’s life, then does the right to the pursuit of happiness provide a constitutional right to terminate any pregnancy for any reason? We don’t know, because the Court’s majority gave us no indication.

This kind of shoddy analysis has become par for the course with this Court. As Carrie Campbell Severino pointed out at National Review, Oklahoma’s system for picking appellate judges is “a relic of the progressive era’s distaste for democracy [that] ties the hands of governors by allocating much of the nominating power to state bar associations.” OCPA has written extensively on the need to reform our judicial selection process by eliminating the Judicial Nominating Commission and replacing it with a federal model where the executive appoints jurists with the legislature serving in an advise-and-consent role.

Last year, a bill to abolish the JNC passed the Senate but met opposition in the House of Representatives. Both chambers, which consider themselves very pro-life, may want to reconsider whether the process we currently use to select jurists is worth preserving—even if changing the status quo upsets their friends at the Oklahoma Bar Association.

Elected officials blast Oklahoma Supreme Court for manufacturing limited 'right' to abortion out of thin air

I've been busy with work and other responsibilities, and missed posting about the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision the other day that manufactured a 'limited' "right" to abortion in the Oklahoma Constitution.

The majority opinion was joined by justices Douglas Combs, James Edmondson, Noma Gurich, Yvonne Kauger, and James Winchester. Of these five, Winchester is the lone justice appointed by a Republican governor, but I've warned about him previously and told people to vote to not retain him as a justice. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Kane IV, Vice Chief Justice Dustin Rowe, and justices Richard Darby and Dana Kuehn.

Here's what you need to know about the judges on the ballot

It's voting time, and you're here because you don't want to be surprised when you see eight judges and justices on your ballot that you know nothing about. Thanks for dropping by!

If you've ever done the frustrating task of searching for information on these courts and judges, I feel your pain. As I mentioned in a previous post, finding information on the justices and judges on the retention ballot can be a difficult task, and basic information such as their ages can be anywhere from difficult to find to completely unknown to even Google.

In this post, we'll cover the following justices and judges, which are on every Oklahoma voter's ballot:

• Supreme Court - Tom Colbert 
• Supreme Court - Richard Darby 
• Supreme Court - Matthew John Kane IV 
• Criminal Appeals - Robert Hudson 
• Criminal Appeals - Gary Lumpkin 
• Civil Appeals - Deborah Barnes 
• Civil Appeals - Keith Rapp 
• Civil Appeals - Jane Wiseman

A quick explainer before we move to the judges themselves. From CourtFacts.org:

Oklahoma Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals and Court of Civil Appeal are called "appellate courts," because they hear cases that have been appealed, and judges on these courts are thus called "appellate judges."

Appellate judges are first appointed by the governor from a list of three names of qualified individuals prepared by the Judicial Nominating Commission. At the end of their terms, appellate judges wishing to remain in office must declare their candidacy for retention. When a judge seeks retention, the judge's name is placed on the ballot at the next general election. Then Oklahoma voters can select "yes" to vote to retain that judge, or "no" to vote to not retain that judge. The Oklahoma Constitution provides that if an appellate judge does not receive a majority of "yes" votes, the office becomes vacant and the governor appoints a replacement.

If the judge does not file for retention or is not retained by voters, the governor appoints a new judge. 

Since Oklahoma went to this system in the 1960s, no judge has ever lost a retention vote. Each of these courts have six-year terms, so keep that in mind as you consider each of these judges and justices.

What's very important to remember is that the Governor is the individual who places judges and justices on these courts, so ultimately, they're respective political beliefs and party platforms influence and inform who they select to serve on the bench. If by some miracle one of the eight judges on the ballot this year becomes the first in history to lose a retention vote, Governor Kevin Stitt (R) would get to appoint a replacement. Do you like Governor Stitt? Are you a conservative or Republican? You might be more favorable to voting no on some of these judges then, as if the judge loses, Gov. Stitt gets the opportunity to appoint a replacement.

By the same token, the party affiliation of the Governor who appointed each of these judges is a contributing factor for you to consider. Do you agree more with the Republican Party platform, or with the Democratic Party platform? When appointing justices and judges, Democratic and Republican governors each have tendencies that generally mirror their party platforms. The judicial beliefs of their appointed judges usually follow (not always, but generally). Your position on the differing platforms is an important point to remember.

After giving what useful information I was able to find online, I will conclude each judge by listing how I will be voting, along with suggestions from conservative Tulsa blogger Michael Bates and conservative activists Steve Fair and Georgia Williams from the Lawton/Duncan area, both being sources that I trust.

Supreme Court (6 year term)

Justice Tom Colbert (71) was appointed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court by Democratic Governor Brad Henry in 2004.

He is the first African-American member of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. In college, he was All-Conference in the triple jump and All-American in the long jump. Colbert was a member of the U.S. Army's Criminal Investigation Division from 1973 to 1975, receiving an honorable discharge in 1975. He later taught in Chicago public schools and law school in the late 1970s-early 1980s, was an assistant DA for two years, and then had nearly 15 years of private practice. Republican Gov. Frank Keating appointed him to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals in 2000, the first African-American judge on that court.

When the State Supreme Court ruled that the 10 Commandments Monument had to be removed from the groups of the State Capitol, Justice Colbert was one of two who dissented. However, on the three most recent cases relating to abortion, Justice Colbert took the pro-abortion side every time.

I will be voting 'no' (do not retain) on Justice Tom Colbert. Michael Bates agrees with this position, as well as Steve Fair and Georgia Williams.

Justice Richard Darby (62) was appointed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court by Republican Governor Mary Fallin in 2018.

Darby served as a district judge for 23 years before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Before that, he was a Special Judge for four years, then Associate District Judge for four years, for a total of nearly thirty-five years of judicial work. His wife was the longtime superintendent of Altus Christian Academy before retiring this year.

On two different cases relating to abortion since he joined the Court, Justice Darby took the pro-life side both times. 

I will be voting 'yes' (do retain) on Justice Darby. Fair and Williams concur, while Bates plans to vote no in order to give Gov. Stitt a new position to fill (and an opportunity to "continue his winning streak" on Supreme Court justices) has shifted to a 'yes' vote upon further consideration.

Justice Matthew John Kane IV (58) was appointed by Republican Governor Kevin Stitt in 2019.

Kane is a former district judge of 14 years. He is a homeschool dad, and a Roman Catholic. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Kane had also served as the Presiding Judge on the Oklahoma Court on the Judiciary- the body that actually judges other judges. His great-grandfather (and namesake) was on the original Oklahoma Supreme Court, serving from 1907 to 1923.

On the one case relating to abortion since he joined the Court, Justice Kane took the pro-life side.

I will be voting 'yes' (do retain) on Justice Kane. Fair and Williams agree, as does Bates (who knows Kane personally and speaks very highly of him).

Court of Criminal Appeals (6 year term)

Judge Robert Hudson (63) was appointed by Republican Governor Mary Fallin in 2015.

Hudson is a former district attorney of 16 years, with 13 years of private law practice before that. He served as First Assistant Attorney General for a year, and then had two years as a Special Judge before joining the Court of Criminal Appeals. Hudson is a deacon and Sunday School teacher at First Baptist Church of Guthrie, and runs a wheat and cow-calf operation near Guthrie.

I will be voting 'yes' (do retain) on Judge Hudson. Fair and Williams concur, while Bates argues for a 'no' vote in light of Hudson's ruling on the Daniel Holtzclaw case.

Judge Gary Lumpkin (74) was appointed by Republican Governor Henry Bellmon in 1989.

Lumpkin served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1968-1971, including 18 months in Vietnam. He retired with thirty years of service on June 1, 1998, with the rank of Colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve. He completed his military service as one of only two Marine Reserve judges assigned to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. Lumpkin spent the late 70's and the 80's as an Assistant District Attorney, First Assistant District Attorney, Associate District Judge, and then and four years as a District Judge before his appointment to the Court of Criminal Appeals. He is a member of Waterloo Road Baptist Church in Edmond. An acquaintance of mine who worked for Lumpkin calls him 'to the right of Scalia'.

I will be voting 'yes' (do retain) on Judge Lumpkin. Fair and Williams disagree and call for a 'no' vote (seemingly due to his long time on the court), while Bates argues for a 'no' vote in light of Hudson's ruling on the Daniel Holtzclaw case.

Court of Civil Appeals (6 year term)

Judge Deborah Barnes (66) was appointed by Democratic Governor Brad Henry in 2008.

Barnes was in private sector legal and oil/gas work before being tapped by Gov. Henry. It does not seem that she had any prior judicial experience, unlike most of the individuals on these various courts. She appears to serve on the board of elders for Harvard Avenue Christian Church in Tulsa (a very liberal denomination).

I will be voting 'no' (do not retain) on Judge Barnes. Fair and Williams and Bates likewise call for 'no' votes.

Judge Keith Rapp (86) has served on the Court of Civil Appeals since 1984, when he unseated an incumbent judge for the first time in the history of the court. Starting in 1986, the Court of Civil Appeals joined the retention ballot used by the Supreme and Criminal Appeals courts, and most sources online indicate that Democratic Governor George Nigh re-appointed Judge Rapp to the Court, where he had been retained ever since. As I said previously, some information regarding these judges is almost impossible to find. The Court of Civil Appeals webpage doesn't even have a biography of any of their judges (literally just a group photo and list of names).

Rapp served in the US Navy from 1953-1955, with two aircraft carrier tours to the Far East. Later, he seems to have been an instructor of Sino-Soviet relations and atomic and biological warfare in the Naval Reserves Officers’ School, and retired at a later date from the U.S. Naval Reserves as a Judge Advocate General Corps commander. Back in civilian life, he worked as an aerospace engineer, specializing in guidance and navigation systems, working on the Mercury, Apollo, Lunar Lander and Skylab projects. Rapp is the longest serving judge on the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

I will be voting 'no' (do not retain) on Judge Rapp. Fair and Williams and Bates likewise call for 'no' votes.

Judge Jane Wiseman (73) was appointed by Democratic Governor Brad Henry (D) in 2005.

Wiseman worked in the private legal field before being appointed a special district judge, and then district judge in the late 70's and early 80's. She officiated the first homosexual marriage in Oklahoma in direct contradiction to the 2004 state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, calling it a “joyous occasion” (featured prominently in reporting by the Tulsa World). Wiseman is a member of First Presbyterian Church in Tulsa, which is affiliated with the very liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination.

I will be voting 'no' (do not retain) on Judge Wiseman. Fair and Williams also recommend 'no' votes, and Bates points out particularly egregious and contradictory rulings she made in Tulsa County before her elevation to the Court of Civil Appeals (he also urges a 'no' vote).

Again, as a quick recap, here are the judges and justices, along with my voting recommendation:

• Supreme Court - Tom Colbert (No)
• Supreme Court - Richard Darby (Yes)
• Supreme Court - Matthew John Kane IV (Yes)
• Criminal Appeals - Robert Hudson (Yes)
• Criminal Appeals - Gary Lumpkin (Yes)
• Civil Appeals - Deborah Barnes (No)
• Civil Appeals - Keith Rapp (No)
• Civil Appeals - Jane Wiseman (No)

I hope this information has been helpful to you. Pass it along to any voter you know that is in need of this material before they cast their ballot! No guarantees, but I'll try to do a similar post regarding State Question 805 and State Question 814.

You can help support the work here at MuskogeePolitico.com by indulging this quick pitch. While you're here, let me quickly introduce you to GetUpside, an easy way to save on fuel. 

GetUpside is a mobile app that gets you cash back on fuel purchases, which you can redeem for gift cards, PayPal, or a physical check. Gift cards include retailers such as Amazon, Walmart, Apple, Google Play, Domino's, Lowe's, Starbucks, and more. Participating gas stations are listed with a cents-off amount. 

Below is a screenshot on some areas here in Oklahoma, showing retailers that participate with GetUpside (prices were valid on the evening of October 26th). And yes, some of those stations are offering in excess of 20¢ back per gallon:

click to view full size

In my experience, most E-Z Mart stations in Oklahoma participate, along with quite a few Valero, Shell, and Sinclair stations. On road trips through states like Kansas and Tennessee, BP and Shell seem to be pretty common. There are a total of 122 gas stations in Oklahoma that you can use GetUpside at, and over 12,100 nationwide.

I've used GetUpside for just over a year, and saved nearly $80 on fuel thus far. Just the other day, I checked in at a participating gas station to save 17¢ per gallon. That's a pretty good savings, don't you think? Use my promo code by signing up at this link. Your first use will get an additional 15¢ off per gallon! 

You can view other money-saving apps I use, along with promo codes to get you jumpstarted, at this page. 

Thanks for humoring me and reading to the very end! I hope all of the information in this post is helpful to you. 

OKGOP warns of "imminent voter fraud", calls for action to reverse Supreme Court ruling regarding absentee ballots

From OKGOP Chairman David McLain:

Call to Action

Yesterday, May 4, 2020, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled to remove the requirement of providing a copy of an Oklahoma photo ID OR Notary Stamp to verify a voter's authenticity when voting by Absentee Ballot. The ruling states all that is necessary now is just a signature on the ballot, with NO proof that it is your ballot and your vote!

If we think the potential for voter fraud was bad before, this type of ruling guarantees a California style of voting and voter fraud like we have NEVER seen in this state! Imagine all the Absentee Ballots that will be sent in by deceased voters! Imagine the vulnerability of our Oklahomans by any group "helping" our seniors fill out ballots at nursing and convalescent homes.

Read SB1779 by clicking on here.

Gov. Stitt makes first appointment to Oklahoma Supreme Court

GOVERNOR STITT APPOINTS JUDGE KANE TO SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma City, Okla. (Sept. 17, 2019) – Governor J. Kevin Stitt today announced the appointment of Judge M. John Kane, IV to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. This is Governor Stitt’s first appointment to the state Supreme Court.

Judge John Kane has served Osage County as District Judge for the 10th Judicial District since 2005. During his 14 years on the bench, he has presided as a judge in tens of thousands of cases, and he has served in a number of other capacities to include as president of the Oklahoma Judicial Conference from 2013-2014, as presiding judge-elect of the Northeastern Judicial Administrative District in 2019, and as presiding judge of the Oklahoma Court on the Judiciary in 2019. Kane began practicing as an attorney in 1987 at Kane, Kane & Kane Law Offices, P.C., a law firm founded by his father and grandfather in Pawhuska, Oklahoma. During this time, he also served as an administrative law judge for the Department of Human Services-Child Support Division from 1999-2005 and as an assistant district attorney from 1987 to 1989.

Kane received a B.S. in agricultural economics and accounting from Oklahoma State University in 1984 and a J.D. from the University of Oklahoma College of Law in 1987. Kane and his wife, Cynthia, have been married for 33 years and have four children.

“Judge Kane’s extensive record serving the 10th Judicial District and his broad support in the community, and from across the state, speak toward his qualifications to join the highest court in Oklahoma,” said Gov. Kevin Stitt. “Kane is an accomplished judge with a reputation for fairness and a passion to ensure the legal system is serving the needs of the people. I am confident Kane will serve with integrity, honor and a dedication to uphold the rule of law.”

“My great-grandfather was a framer of our State Constitution, and it is truly an honor to be selected to stand as a defender of this treasured deposit of wisdom,” said Judge M. John Kane, IV. “I appreciate the Governor’s confidence in me, and I vow to impartially and fairly conduct the business of the Court and serve the people of Oklahoma with full and undivided devotion.”

Kane’s appointment fills the vacancy for District 1 created by the retirement of John F. Reif. Kane was one of three applicants provided by the Judicial Nominating Commission for the governor’s selection.