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.

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.

Group launches campaign to oust liberal justices on Oklahoma Supreme Court

We're one month out from the election, and finally, someone is actually attempting to do something about activist liberal justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court and running a campaign to get folks to vote 'NO' on the judicial retention ballot. Since Oklahoma went to this system in the 1960s, no justice or judge has ever lost a retention vote.

Watch the ad from People for Opportunity:

OCPA column: Researchers find Oklahoma Supreme Court is liberal

Researchers find Oklahoma Supreme Court is liberal

By Jonathan Small

Oklahoma has a reputation for being one of the nation’s most conservative states with Republicans routinely elected to statewide office and the legislature, where the GOP has long held supermajorities.

But our judiciary has been well to the left of the electorate for decades, according to recent independent research.

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.

Small: OK Supreme Court creativity reduces legal certainty

Court creativity reduces legal certainty

By Jonathan Small

Creativity is often a good thing, but the courtroom is an exception. When judges get creative, it means less legal certainty for everyone else.

Sadly, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has provided an example in recent years.

Small: Oklahoma Supreme Court is legislating from the bench

Legislating from the bench

By Jonathan Small

Judges are often accused of legislating from the bench and a recent decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court is one reason why. The court majority declared, in essence, that we have fallen through the looking glass like Alice in Wonderland and up is now down – depending on what outcome is favored by justices.

In Stricklen v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, the Oklahoma Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a section of a 2013 workers’ compensation reform was a “special law.” Instead, the court struck down that provision by rewriting the plain definition of a word.

Small: Conservatives gain in legislative races

Though I have some minor quibbles with Small regarding school choice (primarily as it relates to protecting homeschool freedoms from future government intrusion), but I agree with him that the recent Republican primary results were great news for conservatives. In fact, it may well have been the best election for Oklahoma conservatives in the past decade.

Conservatives gain in legislative races

By Jonathan Small

Last month’s primary elections resulted in the Oklahoma Legislature likely being more conservative next year. That’s good news for voters who care about issues such as judicial reform, taxes and education.

This year’s legislative session ended without reform to Oklahoma’s secretive and liberal process for nominating judges in Oklahoma and without personal income tax reductions.

But many candidates who prevailed or advanced to runoffs in Republican primaries advocated for conservative reforms to change the secretive process for how Oklahoma nominates judges and for cutting or eliminating the personal income tax. Also, voter support for school choice has become undeniable.

OCPA announces Oklahoma Judicial Scorecard

Glad to see this project taking place, as it would be a very helpful tool, especially around judicial retention vote time:

OCPA Announces Oklahoma Judicial Scorecard

Who are the nine justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court?

How have their rulings impacted Oklahoma's ability to attract and keep jobs—and job creators—in our state?

Have the Court's rulings strengthened or undermined the rule of law and Oklahoma values?

These are some of the questions that will be covered by the Oklahoma Judicial Scorecard, a new project announced today by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

In what is often seen as the “reddest state in America,” with a Republican governor and supermajority across the legislature, people are often surprised to learn that Oklahoma’s Supreme Court is considered one of the most liberal in the country.

OCPA: Paycom and trial lawyers’ SB 1737 weaponizes courts against conservatives

Paycom and trial lawyers’ SB 1737 weaponizes courts against conservatives

OKLAHOMA CITY (April 18, 2024)—Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs President Jonathan Small issued the following statement after the passage of Senate Bill 1737, which was supported by trial lawyers and strongly supported by Paycom, an $11 billion publicly traded company with a track record of attacking conservatives in Oklahoma.

“SB 1737, which could provide a windfall to trial lawyers, is a bill that the author has said is supported by Paycom, which has had a track record of attacking conservatives in public and in the courts because Paycom and its CEO Chad Richison prefer the far-left’s plan for Oklahoma,” Small said.

“SB 1737 amends a current state statute to make it even easier to harass political opponents by allowing someone to pursue civil action for ‘online harassment’ that allegedly impacts a company’s intangible assets. 

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.

OCPA column: the OK House - where good bills go to die

The Oklahoma House of Representatives: Where good bills go to die

By Jonathan Small

After the 2020 elections, GOP leaders bragged that Republicans held 82 of 101 seats in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Yet House leadership repeatedly declined to pass bills of significance this year.

A press release issued by House Speaker Charles McCall upon conclusion of the regular 2022 session provided sad confirmation of that problem. Roughly half the release focused on last year’s achievements—not measures that advanced in 2022.

A quick review explains why. The House was often the chamber where good bills went to die.

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.

OCPA: three New Year's resolutions for policymakers

New Year’s resolutions for policymakers

By Jonathan Small

With a new year comes new year’s resolutions. While the average citizen may focus on diet and exercise, state policymakers should emphasize growth—growing our economy and increasing opportunity.

To that end, OCPA has embraced the following goals this year, and we are encouraged by lawmakers openness to the following goals.

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.

Stitt signs judicial redistricting bill

GOVERNOR KEVIN STITT SIGNS JUDICIAL REDISTRICTING LEGISLATION

OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma (April 25, 2019) – Governor Kevin Stitt today signed House Bill 2366, which modifies the judicial districts for both the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.

“I applaud the Legislature for their dedication to government reform, looking beyond state agencies to also our judiciary,” said Stitt. “The Oklahoma Supreme Court districts were drawn in the 1960s and have never been revisited to reflect the state’s current population distribution. I was elected to hire the best people to serve, especially on the Supreme Court where Justices may serve for generations. This common-sense legislation ensures all 4 million Oklahomans are well represented while also increasing the number of quality, qualified candidates eligible for these critical appointments.”

HB 2366 updates the Supreme Court district map to align with the state’s five congressional districts and establishes four at-large seats that are open to all qualified applicants in Oklahoma. The bill also updates the Court of Criminal Appeals district map to match the five Oklahoma congressional districts. Under the bill, all current Supreme Court Justices and Court of Criminal Appeals Judges retain their office and are eligible to seek retention.

“Modernizing the maps from which judicial districts are drawn is an important judicial reform,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City. “By updating the maps, which were last drawn in 1967, we will increase the pool of eligible candidates to fill judicial vacancies. I want to commend Senator Julie Daniels for her great work in shepherding this bill through the process.”

HB 2366 goes into effect January 1, 2020.

Oklahoma Senate approves judicial reforms

Senate Pro Tem Mike Schulz (R-Altus)

Oklahoma Senate approves judicial reforms

The Oklahoma Senate on Tuesday approved a handful of judicial reform bills, including measures that would change the way state judges are appointed.

“These reforms are a measured approach to help restore the balance of power among the three, co-equal branches of government in Oklahoma. Too many times, we’ve seen the judiciary extend beyond its constitutional role and instead take on the role of a super-legislator. These changes also will roll back the outsized role the trial lawyers play in appointing judges to the bench. The governor’s office and the members of the Senate are directly elected by the citizens of Oklahoma and should be afforded more authority and responsibility in judicial appointments,” said President Pro Tempore Mike Schulz, R-Altus.

Sen. Anthony Sykes, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered several of the judicial reform measures.

“Failing to enact judicial reforms continues to put Oklahoma at the mercy of a system that gives too much power to a select group of trial lawyers instead of the duly elected representatives of the people. The governor and members of the Legislature are immediately accountable to the people for the decisions they make. These common-sense reforms will provide more accountability and help put more power into the hands of the people, as our founders intended,” said Sykes, R-Moore.

Among the bills approved by the Senate were:

• SB 708 (Sykes) requires a district judge to have served as lead counsel in at least three jury trials before being elected or appointed to serve on the bench.
• SB 779 (Sykes) changes the amount of judges each judicial district may nominate.
• SJR 43 (Sykes) would allow voters to decide whether to amend the judicial appointment process to model the federal system. Under this proposal, the governor would nominate candidates to fill judicial vacancies and the Oklahoma Senate would confirm or deny the governor’s appointment. The Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) would rate the governor’s judicial nominees as either “qualified” or “not qualified.”
• SJR 44 (Sykes) would allow voters to decide whether to amend the Constitution to modify the judicial nominating process. Under this proposal, the JNC would provide the governor with five qualified nominees to fill a judicial vacancy, instead of the current recommendation of three nominees. The governor would be allowed to reject those nominees and request five new nominees. The governor would then select one nominee, whose name would be forwarded to the Oklahoma Senate for confirmation.
• SB 213 (Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow) would change the boundaries of Oklahoma Supreme Court judicial districts to correspond with the number of congressional districts in Oklahoma plus adding at-large positions.