Two proposed joint resolutions in the Oklahoma legislature aim at dismantling the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission, saying it doesn’t work as it should.
The commission, known as the JNC, is a 15-member board that vets and recommends potential judges to the governor for appointment to the state’s highest courts.
Meant as a non-partisan and apolitical means of selecting justices to the Oklahoma Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals, Republicans in the legislature want to get rid of it. They called it antiquated and shrouded in secrecy.
But that means plucking it out of the state’s constitution, where it’s been entrenched to insulate Oklahoma’s judicial benches from corruption since the mid-1960s when a quarter-century-long bribery scandal in the state supreme court was exposed. And that means leaving the final decision of whether to reform the process to Oklahomans at large — via ballot referendum.
So that’s the plan.
Senate Joint Resolution 6 by Tuttle Republican and Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton and House Joint Resolution 1024 by Clinton Republican Anthony Moore suggest two different approaches to reforming justice selection in Oklahoma — and making the process partisan.
The Senate approach
Bixby Republican Sen. Brian Guthrie presented his chamber’s approach to fundamentally changing Oklahoma’s judicial branch at a Senate Rules Committee hearing Wednesday.
”SJR6 is a constitutional amendment modernizing Oklahoma's judicial selection process by eliminating the Judicial Nominating Commission and replacing it with a system modeled after the U.S. Constitution,” Guthrie said. “It ensures justices and appellate judges are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, which increases transparency and accountability.”
The only difference between the Oklahoma and federal systems, Guthrie said, is that state justices will be term-limited to 6 years rather than appointed to serve for a lifetime.
The proposal inserts the Senate into a process it currently has little input beyond a single appointee to the JNC — and just like the federal process, it eliminates any role for the House beyond helping craft the legislation.
Pro Tem Paxton, the original author, said the new process would ensure the will of Oklahoma voters is followed with more “clarity and fairness.”
”The JNC, which is supposed to be an independent body, lacks the transparency necessary to inspire public trust,” Paxton said in a press release this week. “It’s time to shift toward a process where elected officials, who are accountable to the voters, are directly involved in the selection of judges. With the Senate’s role in confirming judges, Oklahomans will have a better understanding of who is being appointed and how decisions are made.”
At his weekly press conference the next day, Paxton said he’s always had a problem with what little of a role the legislature has in the judicial selection process. Of the 15 appointments to the JNC, the Senate and House leaders each get one appointment, compared to the governor’s six.
From the legislature's perspective, Paxton said, he and his colleagues are closest to the state's citizens.
”The people are not represented on that board,” Paxton said of the JNC.
Senate Democrats have pushed back on Republicans’ claims the JNC needs reform.
Sens. Cari Hicks wasn’t sold on the way Congress does things being more transparent — or representative of the public — than Oklahoma’s half-century-old process. She questioned Guthrie about it during his committee presentation.
“Do you feel like this has the propensity to heighten the politicization of our executives or of our judicial branch?” she said.
Guthrie said having the Senate confirm whomever the governor recommends voids that concern.
”With Senate confirmation, it will have confirmation across all 77 counties of our state representation from all the Senate members that will have a part of that process,” he said. “But as far as the GNC, we don't know what happens behind closed doors. It is not a transparent process.”
Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt said an independent judiciary is of utmost importance to the state, and switching to a mock-up of federal politics is not the way to maintain one.
”The most important thing is an independent judiciary,” Kirt said. “My big worry is that you turn it into a circus, a political circus, instead of focusing on qualification and preparation.”
Kirt said she feels like the justices serving in Oklahoma have been balanced and fair — mostly — and that making the process a spectacle contradicts the goal of an apolitical judicial branch.
The SJR passed the Senate Rules Committee Wednesday with a 16-3 vote.
The House’s Alternative
In the House, Rep. Moore is running his chamber’s alternative to a Senate attempt at replacing the judicial selection process, House Joint Resolution 1024.
”HJR 1024 is a significantly long work in progress, “ Moore said. “What this does in a nutshell, it updates to remove political party affiliation restrictions.”
It also allows members of the JNC to serve up to 12 years consecutively. That means gubernatorial appointees could weigh in on state supreme and appellate court justice selections for longer than a governor can stay in office, entrenching long-lasting executive influence into the judiciary.
House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said in his weekly press conference that this year’s resolution is a second attempt to reform the justice selection in Oklahoma. Last year, he said, the House denied what the Senate is trying to accomplish this session again.
”Last year in our chamber, SJR 34 failed on the House floor, which would have repealed the Judicial nominating commission,” Hilbert said. “We've had long conversations over the interim, so when we rejected SJR 34, that was not an endorsement of keeping things as is.”
It was, he said, a moment to return to the drawing board and craft what he called a “better system.”
In addition to longer terms for JNC members and no party balance requirements among members, HJR 1024 removes language requiring board members not to be attorneys and the disclosure of political affiliations.
Hilbert called the reforms “common sense” changes to the state’s justice system. The resolution passed The House Rules Committee on Wednesday with a 9-1 vote.
Rep. Andy Fugate was the sole no vote in the committee.
If they manage to survive the scrutiny of the opposing chambers and be signed by the governor, both measures would end up before a vote of the people during a general election.
Copyright 2025 KOSU
