Skip to main content

The Legislators in Black Robes Strike Again

Once again, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has usurped the Legislature’s constitutional authority. This time, it has legislated new election rules, behind closed doors, on a compressed timetable, and without public input. All with an election looming in which the new rules will apply.

On Monday, the Court eliminated the requirement that citizens voting by absentee ballot have their identity verified by a notary. If left unaddressed by the Legislature, absentee voters will be permitted to vote with little more than a pinky-swear promise that they are who they say they are, while in-person voters will still be required to show ID at the polling place. The Court’s decision not only harms the integrity of our election process, but was arrived at through a highly unusual process.

The legal challenge to the notarization requirement was launched by a coalition of progressive organizations calling themselves “Let the People Vote.” Their stated reasoning for allowing unverified voting is that voters should not have to risk their health by interacting with a notary in order to cast their vote.

Count me skeptical. In addition to launching this legal broadside in a state in which around one tenth of one percent of the population (approx. 4,000 out of 4 million) have tested positive for the COVID-19, the coalition looks an awful lot like the coalition supporting State Question 802, the Medicaid expansion initiative. They even hired the same law firm. Curiously, the lead plaintiff in the case, the League of Women Voters of Oklahoma, features only two advocacy items on their main webpage, “Let the People Vote” and “Yes on State Question 802.”

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that a separate statute clearly intended to apply to civil lawsuits, not voting, allows absentee ballots to be signed without notarization.

On the substance, the ruling is just bad policy. Our state has an unfortunate history of election fraud, and absentee ballot manipulation in particular. It was not that long ago that a House Speaker was convicted and driven from office for such activity, and the most recent election fraud prosecution in the state involved falsified absentee ballots. With this history, requiring notarization of absentee ballots is a minimal election fraud prevention measure. After yesterday’s ruling, that protection is now gone.

Moreover, as one of the three dissenting justices noted, the decision creates an “absurd” circumstance where the law “provide[s] for no verification for absentee ballots but still require[s] in-person voters to provide a valid I.D.” 

More concerning, the Court took this action in a rushed, highly unusual process largely away from public view. The lawsuit was filed directly with the Supreme Court, not a trial court, so there was no factual development and there is no court to appeal to. The Court truncated the normal deadlines, instead giving the State less than a week to respond to the lawsuit. No public hearing was held (unfortunately, refusing oral argument is not unusual for this Court). Instead, the case was assigned to a Supreme Court Referee, who took argument over the phone. The entire litigation was wrapped up in a mere 11 days, including weekends. On a matter as important as the integrity of our elections, we deserve more than such a slipshod process.

One dissenting justice put his finger on the larger issue, pointing out that “the issues stand presented to the wrong branch of government,” and therefore the Court should not get involved. Unfortunately, it's not surprising that a majority of the Supreme Court ignored this warning in order to legislate from the bench.

Fortunately, this errant decision can be corrected by the right branch of government, the Legislature. Because the decision did not involve constitutional questions, it can be corrected through legislation. Time is of the essence because the Court’s decision is operative immediately and if left unaddressed will govern the conduct of the June primary election. There is some indication the Legislature is prepared to act this week in response.

But even if this narrow voting issue is corrected, what will it take for the Legislature to rouse itself to the danger of a Supreme Court that regularly shows disrespect for the separation of powers? After all, legislating from the bench by the Oklahoma Supreme Court is nothing new. If legislators think the laws they enact during their time in office matter, as I do, and they don’t want to see them erased by an overreaching Court, they need to do something about how those justices are selected to be on the bench in the first place. Here’s a hint: outsourcing the process to the bar, as is currently done, isn’t the answer.

Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Present Reforms to Keep the Ghost of State Questions Past from Creating Future Headaches

Oklahoma, like many western states, allows its citizens to directly participate in the democratic process through citizen initiatives and referendums. In a referendum, the legislature directs a question to the people — usually to modify the state constitution, since the legislature can change statutes itself. An initiative requires no legislative involvement, but is initiated by the people via signature gathering, and can be used to modify statute or amend the constitution. Collectively, the initiatives and referendums that make it onto the ballot are known as State Questions.   Recently, there have been calls to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. At least two proposals are being discussed. One would diversify the signature requirement by demanding that a proportional amount of signatures come from each region of the state. The other would require a sixty percent majority to adopt a constitutional amendment rather than the fifty percent plus one currently in place. Both

Oklahoma Mayors Acted Unlawfully With COVID-19 Orders

In response to COVID-19, the mayors of Oklahoma’s three largest cities subjected their citizens to draconian shelter in place orders, restricting their freedom, damaging them financially, and undermining their constitutional rights. The mayoral decrees were more restrictive than those of the Governor, and in significant ways contradicted his policy. To this day, city-mandated social distancing rules remain in place in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman that are not required by the state’s reopening plan. The mayors claim that where their rules are more restrictive than the state’s, the city rules apply. Was any of this unilateral mayoral activity legally valid? For the reasons examined in my paper published today, An Argument Oklahoma’s Mayors Acted Unlawfully During COVID-19 , the short answer is no. (A summary of the paper can be found here .) A close examination of relevant city ordinances and state laws governing the mayors’ COVID-19 decrees forces the conclusion tha

If Data Is Supposed to Be Our Guide, the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020 Should End

According to the most widely cited model projecting the course of the coronavirus outbreak, today is supposed to be Oklahoma’s peak in daily deaths. Now is a good time to go back to the beginning of the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020, review the goal of our policy, and assess our current status. If our policy should be “data-driven,” as we are constantly told, then let’s actually look at the data and determine our next policy steps accordingly. Spoiler alert: according to the terms set out by those advocating for the shutdown policy, the policy’s continuance is no longer justified. The stated goal of the shutdown policy was to “flatten the curve” so as to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed with COVID patients. The fear was that the virus would spread so fast that at its peak, the number of cases would exceed the overall capacity of the healthcare system. If that peak could be stretched out over a longer period of time, lives would be saved. This concept was il

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each episod