Weekly Opinion Editorial
KICKING & SCREAMING!
by Steve Fair
In 2017, State Senator Anthony Sykes, (R-Moore) championed judicial
reform in Oklahoma. He authored four
bills that sailed through the state senate, but never got a vote on the state
house floor. Senate Bill #708 (SB708)
would have added the prerequisite a district judge have served as lead counsel
in three jury trials before they ascended to the bench. Sounds reasonable, but SB708 never got a vote
in the house. Senate Bill #779 (SB779),
also authored by Sykes, would have changed the number of judges each judicial
district could nominate. Didn’t get a
vote in the house.
Sykes’ Senate Joint Resolution #43 (SJR43) would have sent to a vote of
the people a proposal to change Oklahoma’s system for filling appellate court
justices/judges’ openings. If approved,
it would have removed the current Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) from
vetting candidates and submitting finalists to the governor. SJR43 was approved
by the senate on a vote of 38-5, but never got a vote in the house.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. In the 2024 legislative session, Senator
Julie Daniels, (R-Bartlesville) authored Senate Joint Resolution #34 (SJR34). It was virtually the same language that was
in Sykes’ bill seven years before. SJR34
passed the state senate 32-14. It did
get a vote in the state house, but failed 60-36, when 24 Republicans joined all
Democrats to not let their constituents vote for judicial reform. To see how your legislator voted on SJR34, go
to: http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sjr34&Session=2400. Three observations:
First, Oklahomans want judicial reform.
For the first time since Oklahoma went to a retention ballot, a justice/judge
was removed. Supreme Court Justice
Yvonne Kruger, 87, who served for 37 years on the high court was not
retained. Two other justices were
retained by razor thin margins. For the
first time ever, Oklahoma voters paid attention to a portion of the ballot they
had been ignoring. Kruger was the most
liberal of the three and paid the price at the ballot box. Lawmakers on the wrong side of judicial
reform are destined to bear the brunt if they continue to disregard their constituents.
Second, voters should make the decision on judicial reform. When the JNC was created, it was in response
to a bribery scandal at the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Advocates for reform claim the JNC system
puts too much power into too few hands and is easily manipulated.
Oklahomans deserve a more transparent process that gives the governor
the power to nominate a judge and lawmakers (state senate) the sole authority
to approve or reject it- a system that mirrors the federal system. Critics of SJR34 argue the existing selection
process works well. They contend it
relies on a mix of legal experts and lay people and removes partisan politics
and undue outside influence. The problem
is current justices/judges have struck Not giving voters the opportunity to
make the decision on such an important issue reveals haughtiness and a
detachment from representing the people.
Third, judicial reform will be addressed in the 2025 session. The squeaky wheel always gets the
grease. Those who complain the most are
the ones who get attention. Oklahoma voters
spoke loud at the ballot in November when they voted out Kauger. The past reluctance of state house leadership
to push for judicial reform will likely diminish with new leadership. The old leadership balked and stymied judicial
reform. Expect to see opportunists and
self-promoters to seize the judicial reform mantle and use it to further their
political career. Beware of the ‘johnny
come latelys.’
Real reform rarely happens in Oklahoma at the legislative level. Lawmakers are often dragged kicking and
screaming to do the right thing after they have exhausted every other
option. Oklahomans are demanding judicial
reform. Let the kicking, screaming and
self-promoting begin.
