Skip to main content

Why Oklahoma's Method for Selecting Judges Is a Bad Idea


The state of Oklahoma selects supreme court justices using a system known as the Missouri Plan, which is a form of merit selection. Advocates paint a rosy picture of the plan, claiming that it is a more sophisticated system than the federal model or the election model and that it strikes the perfect balance between the other two systems. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case.

Here is how the plan works: the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), a board of individuals who review candidates for vacancies on the supreme court, selects three candidates to present to the governor. The governor must select one of these candidates. If he does not, after 60 days, the Chief Justice selects one of the candidates to fill the vacancy. Once on the court, justices face an uncontested “retention election” every six years; however, not one justice has been voted off the court in the half century that this system has been in place.

On its face this system might seem like a good idea, but a closer look reveals some serious problems. First, the makeup of the JNC is problematic. The JNC is composed of fifteen commissioners, six of whom are selected by the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) from its members. An additional six are selected by the governor under the condition that no more than three come from any one political party. The remaining three are at large members, one selected by the speaker of the house, one by the senate president pro tempore, and one by the commission as a whole. Aside from the six OBA lawyers, none of the commissioners may be lawyers or have lawyers in their immediate family.This means that the OBA is very influential in determining who sits on the court.

For example, assuming the OBA members vote together, the six commissioners from the OBA would only need one additional vote to control selection of the final at large commissioner. This is not hard to fathom as the commissioners from the OBA have considerable influence over the lay members of the commission, and they are likely to give an extreme amount of deference to the “expert” lawyers from the OBA. With an eight vote majority, the OBA would then effectively control the selection process. In sum, the OBA directly controls 40% of the JNC while effectively determining the outcome of the selection process. As a result, we have an obvious conflict of interest as the supreme court controls the OBA (see Integration), the OBA effectively controls the JNC, and the JNC determines who sits on the supreme court. This so-called “merit selection” system ensures that only the interests of the OBA (lawyers) are represented on the court.

Alternatives to the so-called merit selection model include the election model, which is currently employed by a large number of states. In this model, candidates for supreme court vacancies run campaigns and are selected by a direct vote of the people. The model has two variants: the partisan election and the nonpartisan election. While this system is far better than the Missouri Plan, it too has a major flaw. The judiciary must be able to function independently in order to effectively check the power of the other branches; however, if the judges must face regular elections (campaigns, donations, political parties, etc) there is a much higher likelihood that they rule based on the whims of their “constituency” rather than the constitution, which undermines the sanctity of the institution. In addition, the judiciary would be responsive to the same electorate as the other two branches, which it is meant to check. As a result, we get branches with aligned incentives rather than competing branches. This creates serious issues for a system of government that is built on the innovative idea of checks and balances.

The state of Oklahoma utilized a direct partisan election system prior to 1967. In the early 1960s, however, a scandal rocked the state of Oklahoma as it came to light that certain justices had accepted bribes from lawyers in return for favorable rulings. This caused massive public outcry and gave the judicial reform movement a lot of momentum. There were some who blamed the close relationship between the OBA and the supreme court for the scandal, but reform advocates were quick to shift blame to the partisan election model. As a result, they had little difficulty pushing their agenda on Oklahoma voters, and a ballot initiative to institute so-called “merit selection” passed with a large majority.

It is apparent that both of the models described above are fundamentally flawed. The Missouri Plan effectively allows three groups of unelected individuals (the supreme court, OBA, and JNC) to reinforce each other through the selection process, which is a clear conflict of interest and creates an environment ripe for cronyism in the courtroom, while the election model compromises the independence of the judiciary and could cause judges to rule based on the whims of their constituency rather than the constitution.

The majority of states select judges using elections or some form of merit selection; however, there is another alternative that is far better: the federal model. In the federal model the executive is given wide discretion in nominating a justice; however, any nominee must be confirmed by the senate. This model strikes a good balance between two competing interests; namely, a democratic form of government and an independent judiciary. It shields the justices from the whims of the majority and allows the judiciary to function independent of reelection pressure, while also ensuring the quality of justices by mandating that the executive appoint and the Senate confirm. For example, if the governor were to nominate an individual who is not qualified for the position, the senate could simply vote against confirming them. Furthermore, the federal model does not suffer from the same flaws as the other two models.

In sum, Oklahomans should no longer tolerate the OBA’s control of our judiciary and should instead strive to restore accountability, quality, and true independence to the court. Our best hope for doing so is to institute the federal model; however, even a return to the election model would be an improvement over the current state of affairs. Regardless, the merit selection system must go.


by Tyler Williamson, 1889 Institute Intern and College Senior in Political Science

Popular posts from this blog

Will the United States Supreme Court Stand Up For Lawyers’ First Amendment Rights?

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical. Oklahoma law requires attorneys to join and pay dues to the Oklahoma Bar Association in order to practice their occupation. The folly of this this requirement lies not just in the financial burden imposed on lawyers, but in its affront to their First Amendment rights. This is because the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) routinely uses the money it receives in mandatory dues payments to support political causes. As a result, attorneys are forced to subsidize political activity and opinions they may disagree with.

Over the Christmas holiday I filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief urging the United States Supreme Court to weigh in. You can read my brief here.

The case in question involves a North Dakota attorney, Arnold Fleck, who sued North Dakota’s mandatory bar association for using his mandatory dues to engage in the same type of activity the OBA e…

Want to Improve Public Education? Put the Governor at the Top of the Executive Branch.

Whatever your gripe about the state of public education in Oklahoma, don’t tell it to Kevin Stitt. He can do very little about it. That’s not because he doesn’t want to or because he doesn’t have good ideas about how to improve our schools. It’s because our governor lacks the most basic authority needed to shape state education policy: the power to oversee and direct the State Department of Education.

Ditto for a host of other executive branch functions, including law enforcement (Attorney General), regulation of the state’s largest industry (Corporation Commission), scrutiny of agency expenditures (Auditor), management of the public purse (Treasurer), oversight of insurance (Insurance Commissioner) and regulation of labor and employment issues (Labor Commissioner). Each of these executive branch agencies are siloed under separate elected officials who do not answer to the Governor.

Most organization charts display a neat hierarchy of accountable offices forming a chain of command. O…

10 New Years Resolutions for Oklahoma

The new year brings with it the promise of new beginnings. A chance to reset. To do better. In that spirit, 1889 offers the following resolutions to policymakers across the state.

1. Reduce occupational licensing This originally read “End (or greatly reduce) occupational licensing ,” but let’s be a little more realistic. If Oklahoma would even start moving the right direction (that is, shrinking the number of occupations for which a license is required, instead of growing it), it would be a huge win for the state. It would improve the overall economy. It would allow more people to find a job they are good at. Government rarely gets a shot at such an obvious win-win.

2. Reduce the number of branches of government to a manageable number. We will follow John Adams ’ lead and suggest only three – legislative, executive, and judiciary – and recommend getting rid of the TSET, the Corporation Commission, and the host of other independent agencies with unelected oversight in Oklahoma. Agencies wi…

A Minimum Wage Hike is Bad for Oklahomans - Especially Those at or Near Minimum Wage

Proposed minimum wage hikes have sprung up across the country, and Oklahoma is not immune. Here is why a minimum wage hike will hurt Oklahomans.
What happens when the price of something goes up? Take oil, for instance. As of this writing, the price of oil is just above $59 a barrel. Imagine the Oklahoma legislature set a minimum price for oil, and that number doubled. If gas went from $2.50 a gallon to $5 or more would it change your behavior? Would you drive less? I know I would. This is a basic illustration of the laws of supply and demand. As the price goes up, demand goes down. This is true for oil. People would still have to get to work, but they might rethink that summer road trip. Those who live near the border might drive farther to buy gas from a neighboring state. These same principles hold true for all commodities.
Why wouldn’t it apply just as much to labor? If you have to pay more for each employee-hour worked, wouldn’t you start to cut back on the number of hours you asked…