The Oklahoma Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case filed against Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett seeking to bar him from voting on cases before the commission.
The case, filed by three Republican lawmakers following reports of alleged misconduct by Hiett, centered around arguments of whether or not the state Supreme Court had the authority to take up this case.
“What they are requesting this court to do is enter a blanket order disqualifying Commissioner Hiett from any hearing that is judicial in nature,” said Joe White, an attorney representing Hiett. “This request would effectively remove Commissioner Hiett from his office that he was duly elected to hold. This is an improper request, and I don’t believe this Court has the jurisdiction to grant this requested relief as it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to remove any state official from their office.”
White argued the “rule of necessity” applies in this situation.
The rule of necessity refers to allowing a recused or objected party to hear a case or matter and be the deciding vote when needed, Justice Douglas Combs said. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission is a three-person board where tie-breaking votes are often required to decide cases.
White also argued that the lawmakers were effectively trying to use the Court to impeach Hiett by taking away his voting power on the commission rather than going through the proper impeachment process with the Oklahoma House.
“I’m not going to stand here and act as if I know about the Oklahoma Corporation Commission more than this Court, but you’re limited,” White said. “And you’re limited because the people of the state of Oklahoma, through their hired representatives such as these House members, you cannot impeach. You cannot do what they’re trying to do through you.”
Reps. Tom Gann, R-Inola, Kevin West, R-Moore, and Rick West, R-Heavener filed the petition in September.
Attorney Stephen Jones, argued that the Court was the only body with the authority to limit Hiett’s authority on the Corporation Commission.
The initial filing by the lawmakers asked the Court to disqualify Hiett from “all judicial cases at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.”
Multiple justices questioned Stephens on the intent of this petition, asking why the lawmakers did not file for impeachment through the Legislature rather than going through the Supreme Court.
Justice Noma Gurich said she found “no basis in law” for a request like this.
Jones said removal from office was not the intent of the lawmakers. He said he did not know who wrote the initial petition but that disqualifying Hiett from all future cases was “too far.” Jones said he was withdrawing this request and clarified that the petitioners’ request was to disqualify Hiett from the specific rate cases mentioned in the filings.
Jones argued that Hiett is bound by the state’s code of judicial conduct and state ethics rules. Hiett’s attorney agreed that he is bound by those standards.
Jones referred to allegations that Hiett’s impartiality is tainted after The Oklahoman reported that Hiett was observed groping a man and being intoxicated on June 9 in Minnesota at the Mid-America Regulatory Conference and that he has also been accused of driving drunk after attending a 2023 event in Oklahoma City.
During Tuesday’s oral arguments, Jones said these allegations make Hiett “compromised” because “these utilities and his employees know what he did.”
After oral arguments concluded, White said he does not know when to expect any action from the Court. He said the Court could issue a published opinion, a simple order, or just choose not to take up the case.
Jones said that he is unsure of his clients’ next steps if the state Supreme Court chooses not to take up this case.
Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence.
