Stitt made his fourth appointment to the Oklahoma Supreme Court last week. And while he's been happy with his choice of justices over the years, he said, if it were up to Stitt, he'd rather have the sole power to pick nominees and hold public Senate confirmation hearings, just like at the federal level.
He said the existing 15-member Judicial Nominating Commission, or JNC, which interviews candidates and provides him a short list of potential appointees, is too rushed and obscure for him to feel like he's guaranteed to choose from the best and brightest legal minds.
"I know how the sausage is made on that and in one day, they had to interview all 14 of them," he said. "They're literally 20-minute interviews. Sitting down in a room with 14 people for one day and interviewing, is that the best method to actually pick someone for the Supreme Court?"
The interviews are not open to the public, and commissioner votes for candidates are kept secret, in the name of remaining apolitical. But some Republican lawmakers don't buy the secrecy and are carrying bills this year to reform the process, either in part or completely.
House Speaker Kyle Hilbert said in a recent press conference he thinks the time for reform is now.
"For one thing, the pro tem of the Senate and the speaker of the House are prohibited from appointing attorneys," Hilbert said. "And we're also prohibited from appointing someone to serve more than a six-year term consecutively. "And so you appoint a layperson, takes them several years to get up to speed on how the process works," he said. "And as soon as they get up to speed as a layperson, they can't be reappointed."
Change could occur in the coming years if lawmakers — and the general public — want it to, as any adjustment to the judicial selection process would mean a change to the State Constitution and trigger a vote of the people. The only active proposal to do so is House Joint Resolution 1024 by Clinton Republican Anthony Moore, which doesn't include a Senate confirmation of executive justice appointments. Instead, it aims to "modernize" the JNC by:
- Ensuring the number of commissioners serving matches the number of state congressional districts currently in place, and allowing for flexibility if the number of districts were to change.
- Allows commission members to be attorneys, repealing a prohibition intended to reduce backroom negotiations between fellow lawyers for influential court positions.
- Adjusting the term lengths for non-at-large commissioners to six years and two years for at-large members.
- Allowing commissioners to serve up to 12 consecutive years
- Removing the requirement for balanced political party representation among members, making room for a majority party to dominate the commission.
Democrats in general agree the JNC should be more transparent. But Sen. Julia Kirt, D-OKC, said she worries about the process turning into a copy of the political theatrics that occur at the federal level.
"I think the public deserves to know what how candidates are being reviewed – what is considered how are they scored," Kirt said. "That kind of thing, to me, seems relevant. Having a theatrical hearing where legislators get to ask a lot of questions doesn't necessarily add to the public's transparency."
She said the most important thing is that the state's district and high appellate courts remain independent.
"We just have to make sure we're being mindful of the governor's role in it, and that the Supreme Court — in the end all the courts — need to be able to make independent decisions where the governor is not dictating that."
Copyright 2025 KOSU
