The Oklahoma Supreme Court has the ultimate and final power of arbitration over Oklahoma's civil statutes, before federal courts get to interpret the laws instead.
That's what makes it such an important and powerful state government institution.
It's why Gov. Kevin Stitt wants to have as much influence as possible over who serves on the courts.
"Overall, I haven't been that disappointed, because I've got four really, really strong, good picks on the Supreme Court," Stitt said at a press conference last month. "But I'm just thinking for the future of Oklahoma. When we elect our next governor, would I rather have the governor just choose? Yes."
Stitt said he would prefer the power to appoint justices and have them vetted via a public Senate confirmation hearing. That would be identical to what happens in Washington.
"And the reason I think that's the best model, is the federal model, is because, you know, you gotta trust that person, that man or woman, to lead our state, and they're trying to put the very best people on these courts," he said.
Right now, Oklahoma uses something called the Judicial Nominating Commission, the JNC for short.
It's a 15-member committee run mostly by the Oklahoma Bar Association that vets applicants for top judicial spots and provides the governor with a shortlist of potential appointees.
The governor and the state bar association appoint most members. Legislative leaders and the committee itself pick the remainder.
Bob Blackburn was the director of the Oklahoma Historical Society for decades. He said the JNC has one focus.
"Trying to find people within the community of law, who are qualified, who have proven that they will adhere to the rule of law and not go with an agenda," Blackburn said.
The JNC came about at a time when the state's highest-level justices ran partisan campaigns for their office, just like legislative and statewide candidates. Blackburn said in the mid-1960s, following the discovery of a group of justices who were taking bribes for rigged opinions, everything changed.
"It was a scandal that the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is being corrupted," he said. "People looked at that. Well, what is the systemic cause of this? Well, partisan politics."
One justice had been taking bribes from fellow lawyers for nearly 25 years.
Blackburn said the point of the JNC is to remove justice selection in Oklahoma from the politics and money that consume the legislature.
"That has been the beauty of the Oklahoma system," he said. "And anything that amends that, in my opinion, would weaken the system."
Legislative efforts to reform the Judicial Nominating Commission have been ongoing for about a decade, and recently the fervor to that end has spiked. The main problem with the JNC, shared by Republicans in both chambers, is the limited number of commissioner selections they get, the lack of transparency in the interview and voting process the commissioners undergo, and more partisan control of the commission itself.
House Speaker Kyle Hilbert says there's no time like the present to change things up. And the governor's comments back that up, but he's hesitant to outright dismantle the whole system.
"I would say that, you know, some reforms and tweaks probably make more sense than an outright repeal," Hilbert said.
The Senate has proposed a federal-style process and many other little tweaks here and there for years. Every year, the House has rejected those efforts, sometimes introducing its proposals.
This year, it was House Joint Resolution 1024. The measure would've kept the JNC intact, but allowed lawmakers to appoint lawyers to the commission, increased partisan influence in their selection, and implemented back-to-back terms up to 12 years.
"Being able to appoint an attorney and also being able to appoint someone to two consecutive terms, I think are some good reforms that could tweak the process," Hilbert said.
The bill failed in the Senate committee process days before the deadline for Senate Floor consideration. Senate Pro Temp Lonnie Paxton is firm with the Senate's stance on judicial selection reform.
"I like the federal model," Paxton said. "I like the state Senate being involved in confirmation. I think we do a good job of vetting candidates when they come through."
Across partisan lines, Democrats in the legislature agree there should be more transparency. However, concerns about the independence of the courts persist with the GOP supermajority in both chambers. Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt says the state's judicial branch must stay above the partisan fray.
"What's clearest to me is that we need an independent judiciary and independent courts," Kirt said. "I certainly don't want us to be Washington, D.C., and revisit all that."
Paxton says he's not surprised there were conversations about judicial nomination reform. He's also not surprised they're essentially dead with a month left to go in session.
"This is the ninth year we've been talking about different types of judicial reforms," he said. "And I'm sure we will continue."
Changing how justices are selected in this state would ultimately require Oklahomans' vote of approval, as it would mean amending the state Constitution.
