Weekly Opinion Editorial
STATE QUESTIONS & JUDGES!
by Steve
Fair
Oklahoma
uses a retention system for justices and judges on the state’s three higher
courts. Each justice/judge appears on
the retention ballot every six(6) years.
The retention system came about from a scandal.
In 1965,
three Oklahoma Supreme Court justices were convicted of federal tax evasion
charges for accepting bribes to decide cases over a twenty-year
period. Justices N.S. Corn, Samuel Welch, and Napoleon Johnson
either resigned or were impeached after it was exposed their decisions could be
brought.
After the
bribery scandal, then Governor Dewey Bartlett, (R-Tulsa) pushed for judicial
reform. With the Democrat led legislature’s cooperation, two state
questions were drafted and placed on the July 1967 ballot. Oklahoma
voters approved, by a narrow margin (52%-48%), two state questions (#447 &
#448) amending the State Constitution and creating the Oklahoma Court on the
Judiciary.
The two state questions abolished elected justices of the peace, the county court system, and special courts (replacing them with 77 district courts). It created the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), replacing judicial elections with the current retention system. Appellate justices and judges are appointed by the governor from a list of three finalists provided by the JNC.
Since Oklahoma went to the retention ballot system, only one justice or judge has been removed. There are nine (9) justices/judges on the retention ballot in 2026. They are listed below, along with my recommendations on to retain or not to retain.
Retain all
four of the justices serving on the Oklahoma Supreme Court: John Kane IV, Travis V. Jett, Dana Kuehn and Richard Darby. Retain Robert Hudson on the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals.
Four judges
on the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals are on the ballot in November. Retain Stacie Hixon and James Hurber. Do not retain Jane Wiseman and Deborah
Barnes.
These
recommendations are based primarily on who appointed them to the bench. The two judges I recommend to send home were
appointed to the bench by former Governor Brad Henry, so they have been there a
long time.
There are two state questions on the November ballot. State Question #845 would reform the JNC. Certainly, the JNC needs reformation, but this proposal would give the lawyers more control of who serves on the bench. The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) already wields plenty of influence in who sits on the bench. I recommend voting NO on SQ#845.
The second state question is State Question #847. It proposes to reduce the annual growth limit of the calculated cash value of property assessed for taxation. It would reduce the annual growth from 5% to 4%. It would reduce the annual growth amount for homestead exemption from 3% to 1.75%. SQ 847 would eliminate the hard income cap to qualify for the senior property valuation limit, and change the senior property tax freeze into a tiered cap. Instead of locking the assessed value at exactly zero percent growth, the value would be permitted to rise by an annual limit of 1.75% or higher, depending on income.
Supporters say SQ#847 would protect property owners from sharp increases. Critics note slower growth in property values would also slow the growth of funding for local schools and services. They point out property tax monies stay in the community where it is collected and are one of the few ways local citizens directly control funding for local services.
SQ#847 isn’t perfect, but voters should never miss a chance to reduce their tax burden. Vote yes on SQ#847
No comments:
Post a Comment