OCPAC, Oklahoma Values Coalition release voter guides

For decades, under founder/former president Charlie Meadows, the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC) was the standard for rock-ribbed conservatism in the state. I remember a time when OCPAC and the Conservative Index (run by the Oklahoma Constitution newspaper with OCPAC input) was regularly mentioned on the State House and State Senate floors. Good times... long past, now...

New leadership has taken the group in a different direction and rebranded the organization as OCPAC Foundation ('Original Constitutional Principles Affecting Culture') and OCPAC Action, and their influence has changed as well. Still, they continue as one of the longest tenured political gatherings in the state, and in some ways, they have more pull with statewide officials than ever before, even if their influence with legislators is lessened.

Oklahoma Freedom Caucus on judges, state questions on the statewide ballot

The Oklahoma Freedom Caucus has posted their voting recommendations on the Supreme Court justices, appeals court judges, and the two state questions on the statewide ballot.

A bicameral group of state senators and state representatives, the members of the Oklahoma Freedom Caucus are made up from the most conservative members of their respective legislative chambers.

Here's what you need to know about the judges on the 2024 ballot

It's voting time, and you're likely here because you don't want to be surprised when you see twelve 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 previous election years, 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, I'll cover the following justices and judges, which are on every Oklahoma voter's ballot:

• Supreme Court - Noma D. Gurich
• Supreme Court - Yvonne Kauger
• Supreme Court - James E. Edmondson
• Court of Criminal Appeals - William J. Musseman
• Court of Criminal Appeals - Scott Rowland
• Court of Criminal Appeals - David B. Lewis
• Court of Civil Appeals - James R. Huber
• Court of Civil Appeals - Timothy J. Downing
• Court of Civil Appeals - Thomas E. Prince
• Court of Civil Appeals - Robert Bobby Bell
• Court of Civil Appeals - E Bay Mitchell, III
• Court of Civil Appeals - Brian Jack Goree

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 previous election years, 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, I'll cover the following justices and judges, which are on every Oklahoma voter's ballot:

• Supreme Court - Dustin P. Rowe
• Supreme Court - James R. Winchester
• Supreme Court - Dana Kuehn
• Supreme Court - Douglas L. Combs
• Court of Civil Appeals - Stacie L. Hixon
• Court of Civil Appeals - Gregory C. Blackwell
• Court of Civil Appeals - John F. Fischer
• Court of Civil Appeals - Barbara G. Swinton
• Court of Civil Appeals -  Thomas E. Prince

Gov. Stitt appoints Tim Downing to Court of Civil Appeals

GOVERNOR STITT APPOINTS TIMOTHY DOWNING TO OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

OKLAHOMA CITY (May 27, 2022) – Governor Kevin Stitt announced today the appointment of Timothy Downing to serve on the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Downing’s appointment fills the vacancy created by the resignation of Trevor Pemberton effective October 18, 2021.

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:

Gov. Stitt appoints Judge Thomas Prince to Court of Civil Appeals

GOVERNOR KEVIN STITT APPOINTS JUDGE THOMAS E. PRINCE TO COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS 

OKLAHOMA CITY (Dec. 18, 2020) – Governor Kevin Stitt announced today the appointment of Judge Thomas E. Prince to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. This is the governor’s third appointment to the Court.    

"Judge Tom Prince is a proven legal mind who has served the State of Oklahoma for over three decades," said Gov. Stitt. "Years of legal and judicial experience have prepared him for this new role, and I look forward to watching him serve the people of Oklahoma on the Court of Civil Appeals."  

"I am truly honored Governor Stitt would appoint me to the Court of Civil Appeals," Prince said. "As I have done as a District Judge, I will strive to rule according to the law in each case, to apply the law as written and to not favor any person, group or entity over another. I look forward to serving the people of the State of Oklahoma in this position."  

Prince has served as a District Judge for Oklahoma County since 2012, where he has presided over more than 95 civil and criminal jury trials. During his service as a District Judge, Prince was appointed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court to serve as the Presiding Judge for the State Multi-County Grand Jury from 2016 to 2018. He was also elected by his colleagues in Oklahoma and Canadian Counties to serve as the Vice-Presiding Judge for the Seventh Judicial Administrative District from 2016 to 2018. He was then elected to serve as the Presiding Administrative Judge for Oklahoma and Canadian Counties for the year 2019.  

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. 

Wondering about those judges on the ballot? Help is on the way!

Every two years, Oklahoma voters go to the polls and find judges and justices on their ballots, having heard next to nothing about them hitherto in the election cycle. Making a last-minute decision on an unknown voting issue is definitely not the optimal situation. 

Don't worry, you're not alone. It sneaks up on everybody.

Finding information on the justices and judges on the retention ballot can be a difficult task. Trust me, basic information such as their ages can be anywhere from difficult to find to completely unknown to Google.

In the next few days, I plan to publish an article with as much information as I was able to locate, and that is helpful to your consideration.

To ensure that you get this important voting information, be sure to subscribe to the Muskogee Politico email updates. Once I have finished and published my judicial retention voter guide, you will receive a special edition of the newsletter placing that article in your inbox. 

With how the tech-giants' algorithms work, if you rely on reading Muskogee Politico articles on Facebook or Twitter, you may not ever even see them (a fate met by many conservative publications across the nation). Email subscription is a solid way to be notified of new posts and articles.

If you haven't already subscribed, you can do so below. And don't worry - you won't be flooded with emails. I usually average around once a week (sometimes less, sometimes more).

Signup for email updates from MuskogeePolitico!

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Test

Tulsa Beacon: Don’t retain Judge Jane Wiseman

From the Tulsa Beacon:

Don’t retain Judge Jane Wiseman

Judge Jane Wiseman, who is on the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, will be on the November 3 ballot for a retention vote.

In Oklahoma, voters can retain or dismiss judges on the Oklahoma Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Civil Appeals. Those are the three appellate courts in the state. (District court judges are not subject to retention votes but people can file and run against them). All judicial retention votes and races are nonpartisan.

Since the judicial reforms in the 1960s, Oklahoma has not dismissed a judge during a retention vote.

That’s an amazing statistic.

Why do judges always seem to get two-thirds yes and one-third no in statewide retention elections?

There are several reasons. One is that the vast majority of voters know nothing of the judges who will be on the ballot. So people tend to vote yes on all of the judges or no on all of the judges. No one – especially the liberal news media – delves into the records of the judges up for retention. It’s almost impossible to find information about them on the Internet.

And most of all, no one seems to care if bad judges get confirmed every six years.

Six years ago in October of 2014, Wiseman conducted the first legalized homosexual marriage in Oklahoma. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to make law by forcing states to permit men to marry men and women to marry women.

Fair and Williams publish voters guide on judges, justices, and State Questions

Conservative activists Steve Fair and Georgia Williams, both from southwestern Oklahoma, have published a brief voters guide for over 25 years, discussing the various state questions, judges, and justices on Oklahoma's statewide ballot. Here is the link to their full 2020 guide, along with a brief summary.

State Questions

• State Question 805: Against
• State Question 814: Support

Oklahoma Supreme Court

• Justice M. John Kane IV: Retain
• Justice Tom Colbert: Do Not Retain
• Justice Richard Darby: Retain

Court of Criminal Appeals

• Judge Rob Hudson: Retain
• Judge Gary Lumpkin: Do Not Retain

Court of Civil Appeals

• Judge Jane Wiseman: Do Not Retain
• Judge Deborah Barnes: Do Not Retain
• Judge Keith Rapp: Do Not Retain

Be sure to read their full guide here for more information on why they encourage Oklahomans to vote this way.

Gov. Stitt appoints Stacie Hixon to Court of Civil Appeals

GOVERNOR STITT APPOINTS STACIE HIXON TO OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

OKLAHOMA CITY (March 10, 2020)— Governor Kevin Stitt announced today the appointment of Stacie Hixon to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.

“I’m thrilled to appoint Ms. Hixon, one of Oklahoma’s sharpest legal minds, to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals,” said Gov. Stitt. “Her significant appellate experience uniquely positions her to serve as an outstanding member on the Court, and I appreciate her willingness to leave private practice in order to serve the people of Oklahoma in this important role.”

“I am honored and humbled to have been selected by Governor Stitt for this position,” said Hixon. “I will do my very best to serve the people of Oklahoma as a fair and unbiased judge.”

Stacie Hixon currently serves as a partner at Steidley & Neal P.L.L.C., where she has worked since 2009. Hixon has experience in a variety of areas of law, including insurance bad faith, insurance coverage issues, products liability, employment law, legal negligence, insurance defense, first party claims and general civil litigation. She focuses her practice largely on legal research and writing, as well as presenting motion practice for oral argument at the trial court and on appeal. Hixon previously served as an associate at Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C.

Hixon has been selected to the Oklahoma Super Lawyers list for the years 2015 through 2018; to the Rising Stars list for the years 2009 through 2014; and included on the 2017 and 2018 Top 25 Women Oklahoma Super Lawyers list. She holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Masters of Arts in Political Science from Oklahoma State University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Tulsa.

Hixon’s appointment fills the vacancy for District 1 created by the retirement of Jerry Goodman.

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.

Steve Fair and Georgia Williams on the State Questions, Judicial Retention races

Steve Fair and Georgia Williams on the State Questions and Judicial Retention races

This is Georgia Williams and Steve Fair’s twenty second year of providing analysis of the State Questions, the Justices and Judges on the Oklahoma general election ballot. Georgia Williams and Steve Fair hosted The Grapevine, a popular political radio talk show for five years. They are knowledgeable and thorough in their research. They evaluate each proposal and person. They provide commentary on the state questions and a profile of the justices/judges. They give their recommendations on how to vote on each SQ and judge. While Steve and Georgia are both active in the Republican Party, their views do not necessarily reflect the views of the Party. To contact them, email okgop@aol.com or jorjaw@sbcglobal.net.

State Questions on Your Ballot

State Question 793 - Right of Optometrists and Opticians to 

Practice in a Retail Mercantile Establishment 

(language text and info)

Steve: YES: # 793 is an Initiative petition. If passed, this would likely result in big box retailers going into the eyeglass business, like they have in other states, lowering the cost of eyewear. Opponents of #793 maintain that Optometrists are local health care professionals who do more than prescribe eyewear and Oklahomans will regret turning their eye care health over to discounters. They cite the loss of local merchants due to the growth of big box retailers. Oklahomans are paying more for eyewear than consumers in other states and that is because optometrists and opticians can’t set up shop in a retail store. Local independent Optometrists should have combated the big box retailers by forging a united alliance and providing competitive pricing for the consumer by purchasing together. Their failure to do that has given the big box retailers an advantage in their industry.

Georgia: YES: #793 is an Initiative petition. I agree with Steve on this SQ. While it is true this will hurt the local Optometrists, it will benefit those who buy glasses and contacts in Oklahoma. I know many people who travel out of state to get their glasses and it is because of the restriction of not allowing glasses to be sold in retail outlets.

State Question 794 - Crime victim’s rights
(language text and info)

Steve: YES: #794 is a legislative referendum. This is a version of Marsy’s Law, which grants victims of crimes, and their families certain rights. Marsalee (Marsy) Nicholas was stalked and murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Released on bail before the trial began, Marsy’s killer sought out and confronted Marsy’s mother and brother, who had no idea he had been released. The brother has made it his life’s work to get rights for victims of crime. It is law in five states and five states are voting on a version of it in November. If passed, #794 would give victims and their families the right to be notified about and present at proceedings, the right to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, or parole of the accused, the right to have the safety of the victim and victim’s family considered when making bail or release decisions, the right to be protected from the accused, the right to be notified about release or escape of the accused, etc. A similar law was struck down in Montana because the judiciary has ruled it violated the rights of the accused. Expect it to be challenged in Oklahoma, but #794 is a good idea and should be passed.

Georgia: YES: #794 is a legislative referendum. I agree with Steve. Victims of crime and their families should be notified about parole hearings, sentencing, and releases of the person who victimized them. It may be challenged, but I would be hopeful the judiciary would be as sensitive to the victims of crimes as they are to those who commit them.

State Question 798 - Joint nomination and election

(language text and info)

Steve: YES: #798 is a legislative referendum. Currently, 25 states elect a lieutenant governor on a ticket with the governor, while 18 states, including Oklahoma, elect a lieutenant governor separately. Five states do not have the office of Lt. Governor. By having the two run on the same ticket, it would eliminate the possibility of a Lt. Governor from a political Party different than the Governor ascending to the top job. By their running together, it would also be more likely they would work closer together than if they ran separately and the job of Lt. Governor could be expanded. If passed, #798 would not go into effect until 2026 and therefore would not affect the current Lt. Governor, since Oklahoma has term limits for statewide offices. The Lt. Governor can only serve 8 years (2 terms).

Georgia: NO: #798 is a legislative referendum. I need more information on the nuts and bolts of this ‘new’ process. While the president and vice presi- dent run on the same ticket at the national level, it’s unclear how the process will actually work. Since the legislature is given the authority to ‘establish procedures’ for the joint nomination, it’s not clear how this will work. I have little confidence in the legislature doing this in a way to benefit Oklahomans

State Question 800 - The Vision Fund

(language text and info)

Steve: YES: #800 is a legislative referendum. If approved, SQ#800 would create a trust fund for oil & gas production tax revenue. Beginning July 1, 2020, 5 percent of the state’s oil and gas production tax revenue would be deposited into the fund. The deposit would increase by 0.2 percent each year. Four percent of the fund’s principal would be transferred yearly into the general revenue fund. The Oklahoma State Treasurer would be able to invest the money in higher return funds, unlike the current State Rainy Day Fund, which has restrictions on how the money can be invested. #800 would create a fund similar to what Texas has for their oil/gas tax revenue. It is a good first step in removing the peaks and valleys Oklahoma typically experiences in state revenue due to the volatility of the oil and gas industry.

Georgia: NO: #800 is a legislative referendum. I have trouble with #800, because when we take a percentage of state revenue and put it into a trust fund to prop up government in down years, we grow government. We already have a Rainy Day fund, which the legislature raids every year. I don’t see the need to have a second contingency fund.

State Question 801 - Ad valorem usage authorization

(language text and info)

Steve: YES: #801 is a legislative referendum. SQ#801 would amend the state constitution and allow local voter approved property tax (ad valorem) to be used to fund school district operations (teacher salaries, support staff). Currently that is prohibited. While #801 does allow for more local control, some critics say if it passes buildings and maintenance of buildings and equipment will suffer. Others say it will create inequity within Oklahoma education, whereby some districts will pay their teachers much more than others can afford. Neither of those arguments is without merit, but passing #801 provides more flexibility and local control to the local school board and that is much needed. The key will be to hold the local school boards accountable on how they spend the money.

Georgia: YES: #801 is a legislative referendum. I agree with Steve. My concern is that some school districts could neglect their buildings, but I believe local school patrons will hold them accountable if they fail to keep up the facilities. I would hope this would increase the money that gets ‘to the classroom,’ and doesn’t just pad the local school superintendent’s salary.

Oklahoma’s Retention Ballot System

Why are Supreme Court justices, The Court of Criminal Appeals judges and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals judges on the ballot this year?
Oklahoma Supreme Court justices and the judges of the two other appellate courts are on the ballot in nonpartisan elections every six years so voters can determine whether they should stay in office. This regular vote is called “merit retention.” This year, four Supreme Court justices (out of nine), four Court of Criminal Appeals judges (out of five) and four Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals judges (out of twelve) have merit retention elections.

What do “Yes” and “No” votes mean?
A “Yes” vote means you want the justice or judge to stay in office. A “No” vote means you want the justice or judge to be removed from office. The majority of voters decides.

How did Oklahoma decide to use the merit retention election system?
In 1967 Oklahoma’s voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment requiring that the merit retention system be used for all appelate judges. This vote came after the public became concerned about abuses that occurred because of the earlier system of contested elections.

(click image to view larger)

Edmondson: vote NO          Karger: vote NO          Gurich: vote NO

(click image to view larger)

Wyrick: vote YES          Lewis: vote NO          Kuehn: vote YES

(click image to view larger)

Rowland: vote YES          Goree: vote YES          Swinton: vote YES

(click image to view larger)

Buettner: vote YES          Bell: vote NO          Mitchell: vote YES

Judicial Retention Voter Information

Finding information for the judicial retention voting is one of the most difficult and frustrating things about Oklahoma's election system. There's often little to no information to find out about the justices from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Court of Civil Appeals, and Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Oklahoma Republican Party recently put out the following voter guide on these races, showing the party registration of the judges, and which Governor appointed them to their current office. I will post their appointment date below the OKGOP guide.

Oklahoma Supreme Court
James E. Edmondson - appointed in 2003 by Gov. Henry (D)
Yvonne Kauger - appointed March 14th, 1984 by Gov. Nigh (D)
Noma D. Gurich - appointed February 15th, 2011 by Gov. Henry (D)
Patrick Wyrick - appointed February 9th, 2017 by Gov. Fallin (R)

Court of Civil Appeals
Robert Bell - appointed in June 2005 by Gov. Henry (D)
Kenneth L. Buettner - appointed February 26th, 1996 by Gov. Keating (R)
Brian Jack Goree - appointed in 2012 by Gov. Fallin (R)
E. Bay Mitchell - appointed in 2002 by Gov. Keating (R)
Barbara Green Swinton - appointed September 16th, 2016 by Gov. Fallin (R)

Court of Criminal Appeals
Scott Rowland - appointed November 2017 by Gov. Fallin (R)
David Lewis - appointed August 4th, 2005 by Gov. Henry (D)
Dana Kuehn - appointed October 2nd, 2017 by Gov. Fallin (R)

The Oklahoma Bar Association has put together a website that gives a little bit of detail, mainly biographical, on each of these judges. You can visit that here.

Like I said, it is difficult to find good information on why to vote for or against retaining these judges. No judge has ever lost a retention vote.

MY PICKS
I have heard good things about Justice Wyrick, and Judges Goree, Rowland and Kuehn, and will vote for retaining them. I will vote against the rest unless convinced otherwise between now and Tuesday.

If by a miracle any of them are not retained, the next Governor (hopefully Kevin Stitt) would appoint a new replacement.

All judges retained, but lose at least one county

Oklahoma votes on whether or not to keep judges on the Supreme Court, Court of Civil Appeals, and Court of Criminal Appeals. Never in state history has a judge or justice lost a retention vote, and the lowest statewide percentage a judge got this time around was 58.71%.

However, every judge on the ballot lost at least one county. Here's the list, with their statewide percentage in parentheses.

SUPREME COURT:
James Winchester (61.32%) lost Atoka, Cimarron, Hughes, Pushmataha, Roger Mills.
Douglas Combs (58.71%) lost Atoka, Cimarron, Hughes, Kingfisher, Latimer, McCurtain, Okfuskee, Pushmataha, Roger Mills.

CIVIL APPEALS:
Tom Thornbrugh (61.03%) lost Atoka.
John Fischer (60.42%) lost Atoka, Roger Mills.
Larry Joplin (60.68%) lost Atoka.

CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Clancy Smith (59.93%) lost Atoka.
Robert Hudson (61.31%) lost Atoka, Roger Mills,

As you can see, Atoka County was the lone county to vote "NO" on all judges. Here's the Atoka County vote:

State Chamber rates judges on the ballot

Know your judges before you vote

 by Fred Morgan, President and CEO of the State Chamber

Are you going to vote on Nov. 8? Good.

Do you consider yourself an educated voter? Even better. You know who you’re going to vote for president, senator, congressman and probably even who you’re going to vote for in your state representative and Senate race. Excellent. You may have even made up your mind on the seven state questions that will be on the ballot.

One last question: Have you decided how you’re going to vote when it comes to the retention of any of the appellate judges on the ballot? Are you going to look at the ballot and just vote “no” for all of them, or maybe “yes” for all of them? Do you know how they have voted on decisions that affect you, your business and your family?

Unfortunately, most voters go into the voting booth with little or no knowledge of who these judges are or how they have voted on decisions important to Oklahomans.

Four years ago, the State Chamber of Oklahoma, in partnership with other chambers and trade organizations, created the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council to serve as an educational tool for the public to learn more about our courts and judges. To that end, the OCJC has published its 2016 evaluation of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court of Civil Appeals. We published similar evaluations in 2012 and 2014. These evaluations, conducted by independent reviewers, analyze cases where the judges have disagreed, reviewing the exact same law and the exact same facts, and which have an effect on civil liability.

So, how do our appellate court judges do when it comes to restricting civil liability that increases the cost of your insurance and the prices you pay for everything? Remember, the higher the rating, the more inclined the judge is to follow the laws passed by the Legislature. The lower the score, the more inclined the judge is to make up their own laws expanding liability.

• Supreme Court Justice James R. Winchester, 74 percent.
• Supreme Court Justice Douglas L. Combs, 36 percent.
• Court of Civil Appeals Judge Tom Thornbrugh, 39 percent.
• Court of Civil Appeals Judge John F. Fischer, 37 percent.
• Court of Civil Appeals Judge Larry Joplin, 82 percent.

When you vote to retain (or not to retain) appellate judges on Nov. 8, you might want to remember these numbers. Check out the full ratings at www.okciviljustice.com.

Voters' Guide: Fair & Williams on State Questions, Judges

We're now less than two weeks away from Election Day, and voters are beginning to look into the various State Questions and Judges that will be on the ballot. Here is a voters' guide from Steve Fair and Georgia Williams, two conservative activists from southwestern Oklahoma. Fair blogs at Fair and Biased, and served a term as National Committeeman for the Oklahoma Republican Party, while Williams currently serves as Vice-Chair for the Comanche County Republican Party.

This is Williams & Fair’s twentieth year of providing analysis of the State Questions, the Justices and Judges on the Oklahoma general election ballot.  Georgia Williams and Steve Fair hosted The Grapevine, a popular radio show for five years.  They are knowledgeable and thorough in their research.  They evaluate each proposal and person. They provide commentary on the state questions and a profile of the justices/judges.   They give their recommendations on how to vote on each SQ and judge.  While Steve and Georgia are both active in the Republican Party, their views do not necessarily reflect the views of the Party.    To contact them, email okgop@aol.com or jorjaw@sbcglobal.net.

STATE QUESTIONS

State Question #776: This measure would add a Section 9A to Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution.  It states that all death penalty statutes are in effect, that methods of execution can be changed, and that the death penalty is not cruel and usual punishment.

Steve: This state question came to be because of a shortage of the drugs that were approved for executions.  Oklahoma has used lethal drug injection as the vehicle to execute for several years.  In years past, the gas chamber was used as was the electric chair.    In our state’s early history, hanging and firing squads were used.  The AG and DOC need the flexibility to carry out the death penalty as pronounced by a jury by whatever method they believe is best.  I WILL VOTE YES ON #776.

Georgia: Some crimes are deserving of the death penalty.  The controversy over the use of ‘generic’ drugs to carry out an execution was a tempest in a teapot.  If a criminal has been convicted by a jury of a capital crime and exhausted their appeals, the method of execution should not be the issue.  They should meet their maker.  I WILL VOTE YES ON #776.


State Question #777: This measure would add Section 38 to Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution. It creates the guaranteed right to engage in farming and ranching.

Steve: This proposal protects Oklahoma farmers and ranchers from unreasonable government interference and attacks by out of state special interests.  With radical groups like PETA and other ‘animal rights’ activists, food producers and processors are playing under a new set of rules.  GMO labeling, mandated reduction of sugar, fat and sodium in processed food have found their way into the marketplace and EVERY American should be aware that it costs them every time one of these radical groups is successful in getting a proposal through a state legislature.  I WILL VOTE YES ON #777.

Georgia: This amendment is supported by farmer-led organizations all across Oklahoma, because agriculture is the lifeblood of Oklahoma’s economy and a deeply held part of Oklahoma’s heritage. The Right to Farm will protect all farmers equally and ensure that you have access to great-tasting, healthy, affordable nutrition.  I WILL VOTE YES ON #777.


State Question #779: Would create a new Article (#13C) to the Oklahoma Constitution.  It would create a “limited purpose fund’ to improve public education.  It would levy a one cent sales and use tax to provide revenue for the education fund.  It would allocate funds for specific institutions and purposes related to the improvement of public education.

Steve: If #779 is passed it would make Oklahoma #1 in the nation in sales tax.  While teachers deserve a pay raise, so does every Oklahoman.  We can ill afford placing our retailers near a bordering state in an uncompetitive situation by raising the sales tax rate.  The real issue in education is the number of school districts and administrators.  Oklahoma does not get enough money to the classroom, but until we get serious about dealing with that issue, we are nibbling around the edges.  I WILL VOTE NO ON #779.

Georgia:  There are a number of problems with this proposal.  First, not all of the money will go to common or public education.  A significant amount will go to higher education and the career tech system.  When you couple that with the fact the proposal would make Oklahoma the highest sales tax state in the country, this proposal is not in the average Oklahoman’s best interest.  There is absolutely no evidence that more money is going to make our kids learn more.  We have been hearing that for years- ie horse racing, liquor by the drink, lottery, casino gambling.  It never works.  Other states have tried a dedicated sales tax for education- ie Mississippi- and it had hasn’t worked.  If this is passed, it will take the legislature out of the education funding process- at least with the monies this sales tax would generate.  I WILL VOTE NO ON #779.


State Questions #780/781:  This measure would amend Oklahoma state Statues #63,21 & 59.  It would reform the criminal sentences for certain property and drug offenses.  It would make drug possession a misdemeanor.  It would not affect manufacture or trafficking of drug statues- they would remain felonies.

Steve: Because Oklahoma has a high incarceration rate, some groups are intent on keeping what they call non-violent offenders out of prison.  They believe drug users are not violent and present no threat to the general public.  Most law enforcement in the state oppose this change and rightfully so.  While drug users are to be viewed differently than manufacturers or distributors, they still pose a violent threat to society.  This SQ is a move to ultimately decriminalize drug use.  I WILL VOTE NO ON #780 & 781.

Georgia:  The fact is these two state questions should have been handled by the state legislature and not be voted on by the people.  These are policy questions and that is what we pay the legislature to do- handle policy.  I have mixed emotions about these two SQs because we do spend a lot of money locking up people who are drug users, but in the end, it’s important we don’t become soft on crime.  I WILL VOTE NO ON #780 &781.


State Question #790: This measure would repeal section 5 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution that currently prohibits the public expenditure and property use for religious purposes.

Steve: This issue came up after the Oklahoma State Supreme Court ruled the public display of the Ten Commandments at the Capitol violated the State Constitution.  It would repeal the so-called Blaine amendment.  Already a satanic group has vowed to petition the state to place a statue of Satan on Capitol grounds if #790 is passed and they may be successful.  The fact is America was founded upon the principles of Mosaic law (ten commandments) and the Decalogue should have been allowed to be displayed because of solely on historical significance.   The Supreme Court got it wrong.  I WILL VOTE YES ON #790. 

Georgia: The Ten Commandments are the basis for America’s laws, but if this is passed, it will open up the door for every group who call themselves a religious group to have the right to display whatever they want on the Capitol grounds.  While I would love to see the Ten Commandments returned to the Capitol, I think it must be on the basis they were the basis for our system of laws, not because they are a religious symbol.  I WILL VOTE NO ON #790.


State Question #792: This measure would add a new Article 28A to the Oklahoma Constitution.  It would permit current liquor licensees to see ‘low point’ beer.  It would allow grocery stores and supercenters to obtain licenses to sell wine and strong beer.

Steve: Oklahoma has some of the strangest liquor laws in America.  Many mistakenly believe it is because of the religious conservatives in the state, but the fact is the liquor distributors have ‘managed’ how Oklahoma consumers could purchase liquor.  For me, this is simply a ‘free market’ issue.  These are legal products that under current law cost Oklahomans 20% more to purchase than consumers in other states.  There is little evidence that expansion of liquor into wider distribution results in more consumption.  I WILL VOTE YES ON #792.

Georgia: By making is easier to purchase liquor, more liquor will be consumed.  For me, this is a conviction.  I cannot vote to expand liquor distribution.  I realize the liquor industry tries to control the way Oklahomans purchase their products, but if it is widely available at the local grocery store, more will be consumed.  I WILL VOTE NO ON #792.

JUSTICES/JUDGES

Oklahoma utilizes a ‘retention’ ballot system for judicial offices.  The Sooner state has three courts of appeal; The Court of Civil Appeals, The Court of Criminal Appeals, and a State Supreme Court.  In November three(3) justices and five(5) judges will be on the retention ballot.  Since the state went to the retention ballot system, no justice or judge has been removed from the courts.  Judicial reform is much needed in the state.  Mandatory retirement age for judges, term limits, or facing the voters in an actual election have all been proposed by state lawmakers.  It remains to be seem if true reform will happen in Oklahoma.  It is extremely difficult to find any information on justices/judges.  We base our recommendations primarily on who appointed them.  If a liberal Governor appointed them, they are probably like-minded.  Here are the judges Oklahomans will see on the ballot in November and Steve and Georgia’s recommendations.

Justices of the Supreme Court

James E. Winchester: 6 year term
Appointed: January 2000 by Governor Frank Keating
After graduating from law school, Justice Winchester, 63, practiced law in Weatherford and Hinton before being named Associate District Judge for Caddo County in Jan. 1983. In Dec. 1983, at age 30, Justice Winchester became one of the youngest district judges in the state when he was appointed as District Judge for the Sixth Judicial District of Oklahoma. During his tenure as a district judge, he tried more than 200 jury trials, ranging from fraud to first-degree murder death-penalty cases.  He is married to former State Representative Susan Winchester, who also serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the OKC bombing memorial museum.  VOTE YES FOR RETENTION.

Douglas L. Combs: 6 year term
Appointed: November 2010 by Governor Brad Henry
Combs, 65, is a member of the Muscogee Nation. He served as district judge in the twenty-third judicial district from 2003 through 2010(Shawnee), and served as special district judge from 1995 to 2003. Prior to taking the bench Combs was in private practice and served as an assistant state attorney general and as a deputy clerk for the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Justice Combs graduated from Shawnee High School in 1969. He attended St. Gregory’s Junior College, now St. Gregory’s University and the University of Oklahoma to earn a bachelor’s degree in political science in 1973. He earned his juris doctorate from the Oklahoma City University School of  Law in 1976. Combs is married to Janet Lea Combs and the couple has two sons, both lawyers. VOTE NO AGAINST RETENTION.


Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals

C Clancy Smith: 6 year term
Appointed: September 2010 by Governor Brad Henry
Smith, 73, is a former Tulsa County District Judge.  Smith began her career on the bench in 1994 as a special judge in the Family Division in Tulsa County. She held that post until 1998, when she moved to the Criminal Division. In 2005, then-Gov. Brad Henry appointed her a Tulsa County district judge. In 2010, then Oklahoma Supreme Court Chief Justice James E. Edmondson appointed Smith to the Court of Criminal Appeals after Henry recused himself from the selection.  Smith earned a bachelor’s degree in English in 1964 from Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. She taught high school English in Tulsa and Jacksonville, Florida, for 10 years before going to law school. She received her law degree in 1980 from the University of Tulsa and went into private practice. VOTE NO AGAINST RETENTION.

Robert L. Hudson: 4 year term
Appointed: March 2015 by Governor Mary Fallin
Hudson, 59, was appointed to the Court by Governor, Mary Fallin. He was born in Guthrie, Oklahoma and graduated from Guthrie High School in 1975. He graduated from Oklahoma State University in 1980 with a double major in Agricultural Economics and Accounting. He earned his Juris Doctorate from the University Of Oklahoma School Of Law in 1983. After graduating from law school, he went into private practice.  He is a former District Attorney and a former Assistant Attorney General.  Hudson has been married for thirty-three years. His wife, Mary Hughes Hudson, of Bartlesville, is a school teacher. They have five adult children and numerous grandchildren. Judge Hudson also owns and operates a wheat and cow-calf operation in the Guthrie area. He is a Deacon in the First Southern Baptist Church of Guthrie. VOTE YES FOR RETENTION.  


Judges of the Court of Civil Appeals

Thomas Thornbrugh: 6 year term
Appointed: September 2011 by Governor Mary Fallin.
Thornbrugh, 64, was a Tulsa area district judge.  Before he was appointed to the bench by Governor Keating, Thornbrugh spent more than 20 years in a private law practice in Tulsa. He is a Vietnam veteran, where he earned a Bronze star.  He worked for Senator Dewey Bartlett before he went to University of Tulsa law school.  He is married to a college professor and he serves as an adjunct professor at TU.  They have five children and five grandchildren.  VOTE YES FOR RETENTION.  

John F. Fischer: 6 year term
Appointed: May 2006 by Governor Brad Henry
Fischer,68, has both Bachelor and Masters degree in English Literature from the University of Oklahoma. He graduated from OU school of Law in 1975.   He was an assistant AG for four years and in private practice from 1980-2006.  He is involved in various arts and community activities.  Fischer and his wife Pam have been married for 44 years and have two daughters.  VOTE NO AGAINST RETENTION.  

Larry Joplin: 6 year term
Appointed: November 1994 by Governor David Walters
Joplin, 69, received a bachelor's degree and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Oklahoma.  He was a partner in his own law firm, Wheatley & Joplin, from 1978 to 1982, and a partner with Crowe & Dunlevy from 1982 to 1993. Joplin also served as a special prosecutor for the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office from 1976 to 1978, and as general counsel for the State Insurance Department from 1993 to 1994.  VOTE NO AGAINST RETENTION.  

Tulsa Beacon: Don't retain Judge Jane Wiseman

Don't retain Judge Jane Wiseman

Editorial (link)

As the majority of Oklahomans watched in disgust, Judge Jane Wiseman officiated the first legalized homosexual marriage October 6 and called it a "joyous occasion."

Wiseman is on the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. She jumped into the contentious issue of homosexual marriage because she is an ultra-liberal in a conservative state.

Wiseman gleefully officiated over the wedding of two Tulsa World lesbians, the first time that two homosexuals were married in this state. Inaction by the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a federal appeals court decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act – an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution approved by more than 75 percent of the state's voters.

In other words, one federal judge, Judge Terrance Kern, got to overthrow the will of the people and permitted homosexual marriage.

Kern is a federal judge and is not voted on by the good people of Oklahoma.

Wiseman is.

In fact, Wiseman will be on the Nov. 4 ballot and subject to a retention vote.

Any Bible-believing Christian in Oklahoma should vote "no" on Wiseman.

Any conservative in Oklahoma should vote "no" on Wiseman.

Anybody who thinks that marriage apart from one man and one woman is a perversion should vote "no" on Wiseman.

Anyone who believes that judges should not legislate should vote "no" on Wiseman.

The liberal Tulsa World, employer of the lesbians who filed the lawsuit against holy matrimony, has endorsed Wiseman. The arrogant World editorial staff wrote, "Judges handle hundreds of appeals annually but none of the nine judges (including Wiseman) faces any organized opposition or is the subject of any controversies. Each deserves a yes vote."

Wiseman deserves a "no" vote.

If Oklahomans vote her out of office, it will be a message to the other liberal, activist judges to start following the law and the will of the people.

As the majority of Oklahomans watched in disgust, Judge Jane Wiseman officiated the first legalized homosexual marriage October 6 and called it a "joyous occasion."

2020 UPDATE: the Tulsa Beacon reminds voters in 2020 of these facts once again.