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

Hypocrisy Exposed by Mindless Bureaucracy in COVID-19 Responses and the Quality Adjusted Life Years Methodology

Life or death circumstances can bring out the best in people or the worst in people. They definitely expose the hypocrisy in people. The COVID-19 crisis has done this in spades. And we have an example playing out in Oklahoma right now with a bill that has gone to Governor Stitt for signature. That bill, HB 2587 , would require implementation of safeguards against state health agencies that would use purely economic calculations to justify withholding life-sustaining or quality-of-life-improving care from the old and profoundly disabled. It’s a response to a methodology called Quality Adjusted Life Years in which the cost of medication is compared to supposed benefit for patients. Since older people have fewer years to live, and might not even be apparently productive, this methodology would deny such individuals at least some medications. Quality Adjusted Life Years is the sort of methodology described in the Obamacare Act that gave rise to the claim of some opponents that ...
Read more

What Do You Mean the Oklahoma Supreme Court Doesn’t Publish a Docket?

One of the most routine things any court does is to publish its “docket.” This public calendar announces the cases the court will hear and when they will be heard. The docket doesn’t just keep the court on schedule and notify the parties in litigation when to show up for court, it puts the public on notice as to what is going on in the legal system. This allows for a very basic level of public monitoring of what is (mostly) supposed to be a public process, and at the appellate level allows anyone who may have a personal or business interest in the interpretations of law the court is considering to follow, or sometimes influence the process. Court dockets are routinely published all across the United States and at every level, from the lowest traffic court to the United States Supreme Court. But, incredibly, not at the Oklahoma Supreme Court. No, really. Earlier this year I called the office of the Clerk of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and asked for a copy of the Court’s dock...
Read more

No License, Sherlock: Licensing for Private Investigators

What does a private investigator do? Surely, we’re all familiar with various movies and shows featuring the exciting adventures of Sherlock Holmes or Magnum PI. However, reality is often disappointing, and the fact is private investigation is usually dull and relatively safe. Private investigators are tasked with conducting surveillance and fact-finding missions for their clients, but they gain no special powers to do so.  My recent paper deals with the licensing of private investigators. Oklahoma’s private investigator licenses are governed by the Council of Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET), which follows the advice of a committee made up of people who run private investigative agencies. Improved competition is not likely to be in the best interest of these agencies, so it is questionable whether they should be in a gate-keeping position they could easily turn to their advantage. Private Investigators must undergo a series of trainings and pas...
Read more

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more