There’s an old saying that “If it isn’t broke, don’t try to fix it.”
Senate Joint Resolution 34 would try to fix or undo reforms put into place around 50 years ago that are still working perfectly today.
SJR34 would, if it passes in the House, place a question on the statewide ballot in the Nov. 5 General Election to amend Oklahoma’s Constitution to repeal the Judicial Nominating Committee.
It would replace it with the U.S. Constitution’s method for judicial appointments.
In effect, it could insert partisan politics back into the selection of filling vacancies on Oklahoma’s Supreme Court, the State Court of Criminal Appeals and the State Court of Court of Civil Appeals.
The Senate passed the resolution earlier in the Senate and the House now will decide its fate.
Sen. Julie Daniels, the Senate author of the measure, hailed it as a landmark judicial reform proposal. SJR 34 replace the current system with the U.S. Constitution’s method for judicial appointments.
Under that method, the governor would appoint justices, and the Senate would confirm those appointments.
We believe the reforms that were enacted more than five decades ago ending partisan elections of justices were landmark. The reforms were put into place after the scandals that rocked Oklahoma’s judiciary in the 1960s.
The Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) was created to vette applicants and make recommendations to the governor who makes the final selection. The people were given the right to vote on whether to retain them every six years.
Senate Minority Leader Kay Floyd made a valid point as she stated her opposition to the measure, stating, “We’ve not seen the terrible scandals that came to light in the 1960s since adopting these reforms – they’re working. This is clearly an attempt to gain control of our courts.”
We think that statement is right on target.
The same process is being utilized now to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of former Lincoln County District Judge Traci Soderstrom.
The non-partisan judicial nominating committee advertises the open position. All qualified applicants are then vetted by the OSBI and are subsequently interviewed by the committee.
After being interviewed, the law requires the committee to forward three qualified applicants to the governor. The governor will typically interview all three, and then appoint his selection to fill out the remainder of the judicial term.
In the case of the District Judge position, whoever fills that vacancy for the remainder of the term has the option of seeking the position again in the 2026 election.
But the same principle here applies. It takes partisan politics out of the process, unlike the scandals of the 1960s.
We urge the House members to reject SJR34.
But if it makes it to the Nov. 5 ballot, then it will be up to the people to make that decision.
This is not landmark reform, it’s a step backwards instead.