Skip to main content

To Save the Oklahoma Judiciary, We Must Reform It

Last month, 1889 Institute published my study on the unfortunate state of the separation of powers in Oklahoma government, describing a state Supreme Court that too often acts as though it is a super legislature, in the business of enacting legislation rather than what it is supposed to do. The court should be a neutral arbiter, applying the laws passed by the actual Legislature to cases that come before it. Instead, the Court appears to first determine the policy result it seeks and then dream up the arbitrary legal reasoning necessary to justify that result.

The Oklahoma Legislature is not required to sit idly while the Oklahoma Supreme Court usurps the Legislature’s constitutional authority. It can—and should—act to rein in the Supreme Court. In fact, legislators have a responsibility to jealously guard their own institutional power. After all, we sent them to the Capitol as our representatives. Legislators can no more shrink from their responsibility to exercise their constitutional authority than a lawyer can refuse to argue his client’s case in court. It is what we hired them to do, and they have a duty to do it.

Today, in Taming Judicial Overreach: 12 Actions the Legislature Can Take Immediately, I follow up with proposals to address the problem that the Legislature can enact on its own. Some are relatively minor reforms, and some are more significant, but all of them are aimed at the same thing: restoring the Oklahoma judiciary to its proper constitutional role. Each reform can be achieved by statute, so the Legislature need not wait for a constitutional ballot initiative. It can act during the coming legislative session.

As we build on recent momentum to further reform of the judiciary, we should not concern ourselves (not primarily, at least) with the outcome of any particular case. Rather, we should seek to remedy the structural flaws in Oklahoma’s judiciary. We should incentivize the appointment of judges and justices committed to the rule of law. We should evaluate institutional incentives and, where misaligned, straighten them out. We should elevate the elected branches to their proper lawmaking roles, and help the judiciary find its way back to its own constitutional role. In short, we should restore our government to balance.

And while doing so, we should make clear that we seek to reform the judiciary not because we oppose it or wish to degrade it, but because we aim to rescue it. Our liberty requires a competent, independent, and fair judicial branch. It’s high time Oklahoma had one.

The following reforms are proposed with that high ideal as their explicit goal. In the past, entrenched members of the legal establishment have denigrated all attempts at reform as attacks on the judiciary or on lawyers. I expect my proposals will be met with the same calumnies. But make no mistake: my urgency in seeking reform is motivated by an acute understanding of the importance of the judiciary, not by any animus toward it. I am a lawyer, after all.

The time for obfuscation from the legal establishment has passed. I welcome debate with any defenders of the status quo who seek to engage in honest discussion about the future of the Oklahoma judiciary. But cries of "the judiciary is under attack!" will be received with the unseriousness with which they are made.

1.    Eliminate the Judicial Nominating Commission’s (JNC) role in filling vacancies for all courts below the Supreme Court.
2.    Remove the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) from the process of selecting JNC members.
3.    Re-organize the Court of Civil Appeals to create a true intermediate appellate court.
4.    Make the JNC subject to the Open Meetings Act.
5.    Ban lobbying of the Legislature by members of the Supreme Court and employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
6.    Limit Public Interest Standing.
7.    Establish rules for recusal of justices from cases, and prescribe procedures for appointing special (substitute) justices.
8.    Add “improperly exercising the powers of the legislative branch” as a ground for impeachment of a Supreme Court justice.
9.    Implement a term limit for Supreme Court justices.
10. Require additional information to be reported by the judicial branch annually for purposes of oversight.
11. Make the Supreme Court subject to the Open Records Act.
12. Require the Supreme Court to Maintain a More Easily Accessible Docket.

Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at blepak@1889institute.org.


Popular posts from this blog

About Those Roads in Texas

A s Sooner fans head south for the OU-Texas game next week, they will encounter a phenomenon most of us are familiar with: as you cruise across the Red River suddenly the road gets noticeably smoother. The painted lane stripes get a little brighter and the roadside “Welcome to Texas” visitors’ center gleams in the sunlight, a modern and well-maintained reminder of how much more money the Lonestar State spends on public infrastructure than little old Oklahoma. Or does it? Why are the roads so much, well… better in Texas? Turns out, it isn’t the amount of money spent, at least not when compared to the overall size of the state’s economy and personal income of its inhabitants. Research conducted by 1889 Institute’s Byron Schlomach reveals that Oklahoma actually spends significantly more on roads than Texas as a percentage of both state GDP and personal income . And that was data from 2016, before Oklahoma’s tax and spending increases of recent years. The gap is likely gr...
Read more

Spending It Like They Stole It

When does government have the right to spend taxpayer money? Or perhaps, more pressingly, when should the government be forbidden from spending taxpayer money?   1889 Institute has previously written on the issue - developing five questions that should be asked before any government entity spends a single dime. These questions are:   1. Is a program or agency consistent with the mission of Oklahoma’s state government? This purpose was spelled out in our state constitution : “Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Secure and perpetuate liberty (notice this is the first order of business). Secure just and rightful government (not any government, not the domino of the majority over the minority - just and rightful). Promote (not provide, or...
Read more

Protecting Your Rights: Interpreting Law by Its Plain Meaning

When deciding whether people have broken laws, should judges consider the intent of the legislators who wrote the law? Or simply consider the plain language of the law as written? Legal scholars have debated this question for decades. However, there is only one answer that protects We The People. The Declaration of Independence states, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This means, among other things, that only laws actually voted on by the people (or their validly elected representatives) can be legitimately enforced. Any purpose not written into the law was not voted on, and so should not be imposed. What does this have to do with interpreting laws? In the republican form of government, the citizens speak through their elected representatives. These representatives pass laws collectively, almost always through two legislative bodies (House and Senate) and an executive (President or...
Read more

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...
Read more