Senate resolution could make major changes in judicial nominations

OKLAHOMA CITY – A resolution working its way through the Oklahoma House of Representatives could dramatically alter the way the state chooses its appellate court judges and justices.

Senate Joint Resolution 43 would eliminate the current system of choosing judges and justices and replace it with a system similar to the federal government.

The resolution, authored by Senate Pro Tempore Greg Treat, would repeal existing provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution and replace them with language that gives the governor more direct control over judicial appointments. The resolution cleared the Senate on a 38-10 vote.

Under the state’s current system, appellate judges and justices are chosen by the Judicial Nominating Commission, a 15-member volunteer group that screens potential candidates for judicial posts. Once the JNC finishes its screening process, the members vote for the top three candidates which are forwarded to the governor’s office. The governor then chooses a candidate from the three submitted by the JNC.

The candidate selected for the office is not reviewed by the state Senate, but instead takes office.

Treat, an Oklahoma City Republican, said he wanted to change that.

Treat’s proposal would eliminate the JNC and, instead, give judicial appointment power directly to the state’s chief executive. The governor would nominate candidates for 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.

However, while touted as a mirror of the federal system, SJR 43 isn’t an exact copy. On the federal level, appointments to judiciary are for life, Treat’s legislation, though, would require judges and justices to stand for a judicial retention election once every six years.

Treat said the legislation reforms the court system to “more closely reflect the federal system, giving the governor more discretion on who they choose.”

He said his legislation was necessary because the JNC operated in secret and was overrepresented by attorneys. State records show that of the 15-member commission, nine members are non-attorneys.

Of those nine members, six are appointed by the governor. No more than three of the governor’s appointments can be from the same political party. The remaining six members are elected by members of the Oklahoma Bar Association, each one from a different portion of the state – the originally congressional districts when the JNC was established in 1967.

Oklahoma moved to the Judicial Nominating Commission after two justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Earl Welch and N.S. Corn, were forced out of office in 1964. A federal grand jury indicted Welch and Corn on charges of income tax evasion, saying that Welch evaded $13,364 in income taxes while Corn didn’t pay $11,063. The scandal grew after Corn confessed to a bribery scheme that involved other members of the high court.

With pressure mounting, voters adopted State Question 447 which established the commission. Since then, experts say, the state’s appellate court system has had few problems.

“The system is working, and it has worked for a long time,” House Minority Leader Emily Virgin said. “There is no need to change it.”

Virgin, a Democrat from Norman, said she was opposed to the proposal. She said the state’s judicial system has operated smoothly for years and that SJR 43 was just the latest in a long line of attempts by the GOP to inject politics into the judiciary.

“They want to change it because they aren’t getting the (court) rulings they want,” she said. “The court is following the law. That’s what we expect from the judiciary.”

The resolution is currently on second reading in the House of Representatives and has been assigned to the Rules Committee.