Judicial Nominating Commission reform measures pass State House

Judicial Nominating Commission Reform Measures Pass House

OKLAHOMA CITY (March 13th) – The House passed two measures this week that would reform the way judges are vetted and selected in Oklahoma.

The state's Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), established in 1967 by an amendment to the state Constitution, is charged with nominating the three most qualified candidates for appointment by the governor to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Court of Civil Appeals, as well as district and associate district judgeships when vacancies occur outside the normal election process for those positions. Currently, six of the 15 members of the commission are attorneys and nine are non-lawyers.

"A majority of Oklahomans are ready to modernize how state judicial applicants are vetted and appointed," said Speaker Pro Tem Anthony Moore, R-Clinton, who is the author of the bills. "The judiciary provides a vital check and balance function as laws are created, and it is important the system remains above reproach and is managed by those who know the law best. These two measures would update the nominating process in a way that would benefit the public while preserving the integrity of this system."

Small: Oklahoma Supreme Court appointment process deserves scrutiny

Judicial appointment deserves scrutiny

By Jonathan Small

In the 2024 general election, Oklahomans chose to move on from extremely liberal judicial activist, Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Yvonne Kauger, when a majority of voters opposed her retention.

That process to replace Kauger, one of the court’s most liberal members, is now underway. Oklahomans should watch that process closely – at least what little they can.

As has become well known, Oklahoma’s judicial-appointment process is shrouded in secrecy.

Oklahoma Supreme Court applicants include Democratic donors

Oklahoma Supreme Court applicants include Democratic donors

By Ray Carter | January 17th, 2025

In the November 2024 general election, Oklahoma voters chose to oust Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Yvonne Kauger with a majority opposing her retention.

That opened a spot on the court. Three nominees will soon be selected by the secretive Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) and forwarded to Gov. Kevin Stitt, who will be limited to choosing only one of those three candidates to serve on the Oklahoma Supreme Court under the state’s current judicial-appointment system.

While the vote to oust Kauger, who was first appointed by a Democratic governor, may represent voters wanting a Republican governor to have the chance to make a court appointment, records indicate that at least five of the 14 individuals who have applied with the Judicial Nominating Commission have previously contributed to the political campaigns of Democratic candidates or to or to a political action committee that funded Democrats.

Small: OKC news station fails the fact test on judicial retention story

Failing the fact test

By Jonathan Small

In policy debates, facts matter even if everyone is entitled to his own opinions about those facts.

Unfortunately, when it comes to understanding the history of Oklahoma’s judiciary and ongoing debates about reform, some individuals cannot get basic facts straight.

With three members of the Oklahoma Supreme Court facing retention elections this year, an Oklahoma City TV news station recently aired a lengthy related story.

That story, as originally aired, was notable for containing demonstrably false and undeniably incorrect information.

Democrat judges defy Oklahoma’s GOP trend

Democrat judges defy Oklahoma’s GOP trend

By Ray Carter | September 3rd, 2024

In the last 30 years, Republican candidates have been elected Oklahoma governor in 75 percent of races.

But nearly half of the members of the Oklahoma Supreme Court—four of nine justices—were appointed by Democratic governors. And those Democratic appointees have been retained by Oklahoma voters even as those same voters overwhelmingly vote for GOP candidates in presidential and statewide races.

The persistence of Democratic judicial appointees on Oklahoma’s top court contrasts with the pattern in two of the nation’s fastest-growing states where voters have largely supported Republican candidates in statewide races.

In Florida, as in Oklahoma, Republican candidates have been elected in 75 percent of the eight gubernatorial races conducted from 1994 to today. But all seven current members of the Florida Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors. [Two members of the Florida court were appointed by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who was elected governor as a Republican in 2006 but became an independent in 2010 while running for U.S. Senate and eventually became a Democrat in 2012.]

In Texas, where justices are directly elected, all nine members of the Texas Supreme Court are registered Republicans.

In Oklahoma, judicial nominees are selected by the secretive Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC). The JNC selects up to three nominees for court positions, including the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and the governor then makes an appointment from that list.

The JNC’s membership is substantially determined by the Oklahoma Bar Association, and public records show that 22 of the 32 individuals appointed to the JNC by the Oklahoma Bar Association from 2000 to today (nearly 69 percent) have directed most of their campaign donations to Democrats, including to presidential candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Only one bar appointee to the JNC since 2000 overwhelmingly donated to Republican candidates.

The JNC’s structure tilts the judicial nominating process in favor of Democrat-aligned judges, particularly when the governor who makes the final selection is a Democrat.

However, judges are subject to retention ballot elections, which is supposed to allow the public to have input into the process.

But a lack of public information had made those elections virtually meaningless.

“What information would Oklahoma voters have on how judges are doing their job?” said Andrew Spiropoulos, the Robert S. Kerr, Sr. Professor of Constitutional Law at Oklahoma City University. “They’re not regularly involved in the legal system and so their presumption is that judges are doing their job and if that wasn’t the case someone would tell them.”

The Democratic appointees to the Oklahoma Supreme Court are Douglas Combs, Noma Gurich, Yvonne Kauger, and James Edmondson.

In 2012, all four Democratic appointees to the Oklahoma Supreme Court were on a retention ballot and received the support of more than 65 percent of voters each, even as two out of three Oklahoma voters supported the election of Republican Mitt Romney in that year’s presidential election.

While Democratic President Barack Obama received only 443,547 votes from Oklahomans that year, the three Democratic appointees to the Oklahoma Supreme Court received 775,016 to 792,216 pro-retention votes apiece.

In 2016, Combs was retained with nearly 59 percent of the vote even as nearly two-in-three Oklahoma voters supported Donald Trump’s election as president and Republican James Lankford was re-elected U.S. senator with nearly 68 percent of the vote.

Only 420,375 Oklahomans voted for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton that year and just 355,911 voted for the Democratic candidate in the U.S. Senate race, but Democratic appointee Combs was retained on the Oklahoma Supreme Court with 760,927 votes.

When Gurich, Kauger, and Edmondson were last on a retention ballot in 2018, they were supported by 59 percent to 62 percent of voters apiece, even as Oklahomans elected Republican Kevin Stitt as governor. Stitt received 644,579 votes to the 500,973 votes cast for his Democratic opponent, but the three Democratic appointees to the Oklahoma Supreme Court received 611,334 to 637,315 pro-retention votes each.

In 2022, Combs was again retained with the support of 628,893 voters, or 61 percent of the vote, even as Stitt was re-elected with 639,484 votes. As a Democratic appointee to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Combs received nearly 147,000 more votes for retention than the Democratic gubernatorial nominee received that year.

Why do Oklahomans vote for Republicans candidates in presidential and statewide races while giving strong majority support to Democratic appointees to the Oklahoma Supreme Court?

In part, it’s because few Oklahomans are aware those justices are Democratic appointees.

“They don’t see any partisan listing on the ballot,” Spiropoulos said. “And to be truthful, Oklahomans get very little information on how judges do their jobs.”

Because of the lack of information, it is possible that many voters believe Oklahoma Supreme Court justices are conservatives, given that Republicans hold all statewide offices and supermajorities in the Oklahoma Legislature.

In other states and cities around the country, Spiropoulos said judicial evaluation commissions are common and provide public information on judicial performance.

But that has not been the norm in Oklahoma.

However, this year the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs has created what may be the most comprehensive judicial review site in state history, providing information on members of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Judicial Scorecard can be viewed at www.oklajudges.com.

Under business-as-normal in Oklahoma, when voters are provided almost no information on judges facing retention, judges are seldom removed from office because few voters have even basic information about those jurists. Only individuals who make headlines for bad behavior face any consequences, and those cases typically involve behavior so extreme that the judge made national headlines.

Critics have long argued Oklahomans should have higher standards for members of the state judiciary than “don’t embarrass us on a national scale.”

“If a judge goes insane, or shoots somebody like we’re trying to deal with right now, have sex with your bailiff, they’ll remove you for that; the texting on the bench,” Spiropoulos said. “If a judge does something that’s publicly terrible, we have judicial discipline. But that’s the only time we remove a judge.”

Article authored by Ray Carter of the Center for Independent Journalism. Re-published by permission.

OCPA column: Goals for 2024

Goals for 2024

By Jonathan Small

Just as citizens make new year’s resolutions, policymakers should also set goals for the next 12 months. With the 2024 session beginning in roughly one month, this is a perfect time for lawmakers to take that step.

First up: reforming Oklahoma’s judicial-selection process. Instead of allowing the executive branch to nominate judges and requiring legislative approval for confirmation—the system installed by our nation’s founding fathers at the federal level—Oklahoma uses a 15-member Judicial Nominating Commission that operates in secret to select judicial nominees.

Small: Time for Oklahoma judicial selection overhaul

Time for Oklahoma judicial selection overhaul

By Jonathan Small

When Oklahomans cast their ballots, they expect the election results will have consequences. Winning candidates, having received majority support, are expected to then implement policies endorsed by voters.

In presidential elections, a candidate’s judicial philosophy matters to voters. The president has the power to select any qualified judicial nominee, subject to Senate approval for confirmation.

But that’s not how it works in Oklahoma. Instead, regardless of who Oklahomans elect governor, judicial nominees are selected by an outside group – the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC).

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.

State Senate passes measure for voters to consider judicial nomination reform

JUDICIAL-NOMINATION REFORM WINS OKLAHOMA SENATE APPROVAL

Legislation that would reform the state’s judicial nominating process has won easy approval in the Oklahoma Senate.

“This is an extremely important reform that I think most Oklahomans will support,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City.

Senate Joint Resolution 43, by Treat, would give voters the opportunity to amend the Oklahoma Constitution so that many judicial nominees would be selected by the governor with Senate confirmation required for appointment, duplicating the process used to make federal judicial appointments.

The governor would nominate the chief justice and associate justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the chief judge and associate judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the judges of all intermediate appellate courts.

Following gubernatorial nomination and Senate approval, those judges would then be subject to periodic retention-ballot elections.

District court judges would be chosen by election in a process that identifies the partisan affiliation of a judicial candidate.

The system created by SJR 43 would replace Oklahoma’s Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC). The JNC is a 15-member group that screens applicants for some of Oklahoma’s highest courts. In the case of Oklahoma Supreme Court vacancies, the JNC recommends only three nominees. The governor is not allowed to consider appointing anyone else, regardless of other potential jurists’ records. However, under SJR 43, the governor would be allowed to consider a much wider range of potential judicial nominees.

The JNC system has long been criticized for its secrecy and the perception that the group is overly controlled by the Oklahoma Bar Association, which appoints many of its members.

Gov. Stitt appoints Greg Blackwell to Court of Civil Appeals

GOVERNOR KEVIN STITT APPOINTS GREGORY BLACKWELL TO COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

OKLAHOMA CITY (July 21, 2021) – Governor Kevin Stitt announced today the appointment of Gregory Blackwell to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.  This is the governor’s fourth appointment to the Court.

“Greg Blackwell has proven his legal expertise through his years of practicing and defending the law,” said Gov. Stitt. “I am confident he will serve on the Court of Civil Appeals with honor and commitment.”

"I'm humbled and grateful that the governor has appointed me to serve the people of Oklahoma as an appellate judge,” said Blackwell. “My career has taken me to many places, but I've never felt more at home than at the Court of Civil Appeals. I look forward to meeting my new colleagues, rolling up my sleeves, and doing the important work of the court for many years to come." 

Columnist: Why I Refuse to Vote in Judicial Retention Elections

I Abstain: Why I Refuse to Vote in Judicial Retention Elections

By Tyler Williamson, 1889 Institute

Every two years, certain judges are placed on the ballot for a simple yes/no retention vote. These elections stem from Oklahoma’s judicial selection method, and ask voters whether they want to keep, or retain, certain judges. Elections are staggered so judges only face retention every six years. However, not a single judge has been voted out in the fifty-plus years since retention elections were instituted.

I would wager that the majority of Oklahoma voters, including me, a relatively informed voter, know next to nothing about the judges that come up for retention votes. That is unsurprising, considering most people don’t have the time to research and evaluate the legal philosophy and judicial track record of every judge. Thus, a look at election results from the past few elections tell a simple story: a majority vote yes on all of the judges, a decent minority vote no on all of them, while only a small fraction do research and make informed votes. To be clear, I am not lambasting Oklahomans for being uninformed. Many people I know personally vote “No” on all retention elections no matter who it is. I used to vote “No” by default as well. The problem is, it doesn’t matter how informed you are. The judicial selection system we use is extremely flawed, thus rendering your vote meaningless.

Consider the following:

OCPA column: Joe Biden no excuse for inaction in OK

Joe Biden no excuse for inaction in OK

By Jonathan Small

Joe Biden’s inauguration means Democrats now hold narrow control of Congress and the presidency. But it does not mean advocates for freedom have no way to impact policy.

Even when the far-left holds power in Washington, the states remain the place where innovative policy advances are most likely to occur. That should prompt advocates for freedom to redouble their efforts here in Oklahoma.

This would be true at the start of any presidential term, but it’s especially important this year as the disruption created by COVID-19 and the gaping flaws it exposed in our state systems has created public demand for change.

1889 Institute: To save the Oklahoma judiciary, we must reform it

 

To Save the Oklahoma Judiciary, We Must Reform It

The Oklahoma Supreme Court too often acts as though it is a super legislature rather than the state’s highest court. It should be a neutral arbiter, applying the laws passed by the actual Legislature to cases that come before it. Instead, the Court appears to first determine the policy result it desires and then dream up the arbitrary legal reasoning necessary to justify that result.

The Oklahoma Legislature is not required to sit idly while the Oklahoma Supreme Court abuses its constitutional authority. It can—and should—act to rein in the Supreme Court. In fact, legislators have a responsibility to jealously guard their own institutional power. After all, we sent them to the Capitol as our representatives. It is what we hired them to do, and they have a duty to do it.

The surest way to reform the Court is to change the way justices are selected. That process is dominated by the Oklahoma Bar Association, under a system documented to produce a more left-wing judiciary than other selection methods. Unfortunately, in Oklahoma, doing so would require the heavy lift of a constitutional amendment.

But the Legislature is not without recourse.

1889 Institute: OK's Secretive Process of Selecting Judges Needs Sunshine

Oklahoma's Secretive Process of Selecting Judges Needs Sunshine

By Benjamin Lepak

Oklahoma has an unnecessarily secretive judicial appointment process. Consequently, it is subject to capture by special interests, and the public has no meaningful way to scrutinize it.

It does not have to be this way. Other states are vastly more transparent, and operate with consistent rules and public accountability.

When a judicial vacancy arises in Oklahoma, the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) gets the first veto over candidates, narrowing the pool to a list of three. The governor is required to appoint from that list, giving the JNC considerable power over the process, as the governor’s hands are tied if the JNC sends him candidates he dislikes.

Lawyers enjoy disproportionate influence in this process. Forty percent of the JNC’s members must be members of the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), even though lawyers make up less than one percent of Oklahoma’s population. This is troubling, since the OBA exists to advance its members’ interests, and its membership is made up of lawyers who regularly appear in front of the judges the JNC selects. It is unsurprising, then, that the Oklahoma Supreme Court regularly legislates from the bench, often favorably to the financial interests of trial lawyers.

The conflict of interest presented by the lawyer dominated process is made worse by the JNC’s closed process. The JNC does not put its votes on the record where the public can see.

Oklahoma law provides virtually no rules of operation for the JNC. If the JNC follows any written rules at all, they are not public. It is not even required by law to actually interview anyone.

What’s more, unlike every town council and rural school board in the state, the JNC does not adhere to the Open Meetings Act, despite being wholly supported by public funds and not specifically exempted from the Act. We have no idea what is discussed among JNC members, questions asked of candidates, or of outside lobbying of members.

This is no way to appoint one of the three branches of our state government.

Nearly all other state nominating commissions have written rules and require advance public notice of meetings. Other states also invite public comment on the candidates.

Even better, a majority of state nominating commissions hold open public meetings. For many, this includes candidate interviews. Several states stream the proceedings of their nominating commissions online.

Others interview candidates or deliberate in closed session, but do everything else in public. Perhaps the JNC should be allowed to deliberate privately so members can speak candidly without harming candidates’ reputations, but should the entire proceeding be secret?

Appointments to Oklahoma appellate courts have effectively become lifetime appointments. Candidate privacy does not outweigh the public's interest in ensuring the process is above board.

Some sunshine for Oklahoma's judicial selection process is in order.

Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at blepak@1889institute.org.

1889 Institute: Reforms needed to tame overreaching state courts

Reforms Needed to Tame Oklahoma’s Overreaching Courts

12 actions the Oklahoma Legislature take immediately

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK (October 23, 2019) – A new 1889 Institute publication, “Taming Judicial Overreach: 12 Actions the Legislature Can Take Immediately” fulfills a promise from Ben Lepak, 1889 Institute’s Legal Fellow, to publish a list of statutory court reform recommendations. That promise was made in a previous report, “Legislators in Black Robes: Unelected Lawmaking by the Oklahoma Supreme Court,” a study that showed how the court often acts as an unelected legislature.

Although four specific recommendations were included in the previous paper, with one that would require amending the constitution, other statutory reforms are possible. These are explained in detail in the new paper; these reforms include:

1. Eliminate the Judicial Nominating Commission’s (JNC) role in filling vacancies for all courts below the Supreme Court.
2. Remove the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) from the process of selecting JNC members.
3. Re-organize the Court of Civil Appeals to create a true intermediate appellate court.
4. Make the JNC subject to the Open Meetings Act.
5. Ban lobbying of the Legislature by members of the Supreme Court and employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
6. Limit Public Interest Standing.
7. Establish rules for recusal of justices from cases, and prescribe procedures for appointing special (substitute) justices.
8. Add “improperly exercising the powers of the legislative branch” as a ground for impeachment of a Supreme Court justice.
9. Implement a term limit for Supreme Court justices.
10. Require additional information to be reported by the judicial branch annually for purposes of oversight.
11. Make the Supreme Court subject to the Open Records Act.
12. Require the Supreme Court to Maintain a More Easily Accessible Docket.

In explaining his reason for proposing these reforms Ben Lepak said, “The Oklahoma Legislature need not sit idly as the Supreme Court whittles away at the Legislature’s legitimate constitutional authority, but can take immediate action without having to go to the voters to amend the constitution.” Lepak went on to say, “The Legislature, as the people’s legitimate representatives in government not only can take these actions, but owe it to their constituents to do so, and must if they are to uphold the Rule of Law.”

About the 1889 Institute
The 1889 Institute is an independent Oklahoma think tank committed to state policy fostering limited and responsible government, free enterprise and a robust civil society. The publication, “Taming Judicial Overreach: 12 Actions the Legislature Can Take Immediately” can be found on the nonprofit’s website at https://1889institute.org/govt-profiteering.

Senate Pro Tem appoints Rick Nagel to Judicial Nominating Commission

Senate Pro Tem Greg Treat appoints Rick Nagel to Judicial Nominating Commission

OKLAHOMA CITY – Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat on Friday announced his appointment of Rick Nagel of Norman to the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC).

The JNC selects judicial candidates that the governor then considers for appointment to state courts. The Senate President Pro Tempore is responsible for appointing an at-large, non-attorney member of the JNC.

Nagel’s term as an at-large member begins immediately. He will serve a two-year term which expires in October 2021.

“The JNC plays an important role in shaping the courts in Oklahoma. It’s incredibly important that the women and men considered by the governor for judicial appointments be immensely qualified to serve as wise and impartial jurists. Rick Nagel will bring a welcome perspective to the JNC in how it selects the pool of judicial candidates passed on to the governor. I appreciate his willingness to take on this important job and I have full confidence Rick will do an excellent job serving on the JNC,” said Treat, R-Oklahoma City.

Nagel is the managing partner of Acorn Growth Companies. He serves on the board of directors of the State Chamber of Oklahoma and is involved in many civic organizations, including the Oklahoma Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Oklahoma’s College of Engineering.