The Judicial Nominating Commission, or JNC, is a 15-member group that vets applicants for top judicial positions and provides the governor with a shortlist of the best candidates.
House Joint Resolution 1024 proposes a state question to remove some of the guardrails put in place to fight corruption, such as a party-affiliation balance, legal-experience requirements and term limits. The bill rolled over from last year’s session and represents a compromise between Gov. Kevin Stitt and the Senate, who prefer to mimic the federal Senate confirmation process, and the House, which leans toward massive changes to the commission instead of an outright replacement.
The effort has failed to make it to the governor’s desk in any form for the better part of a decade.
Sen. Todd Gollihare, R-Bristow, presented the measure on the Senate floor last week on Thursday. He said his party should have more influence in selecting judges because judges have the power to overturn legislation and executive branch actions.
“In the supermajority state…The third branch having that influence, that is not really equitable for the majority party,” Gollihare said.
Originally proposed by Rep. Anthony Moore, R-Clinton, last year, the measure itself hasn’t changed much. It still proposes the following:
- Ensuring the number of commissioners serving matches the number of state congressional districts currently in place, and allowing for flexibility if the number of districts were to change.
- Allows commission members to be attorneys, repealing a prohibition intended to reduce backroom negotiations between fellow lawyers for influential court positions.
- Adjusting the term lengths for non-at-large commissioners to six years and two years for at-large members.
- Allowing commissioners to serve up to 12 consecutive years.
- Removing the requirement for balanced political party representation among members, making room for a majority party to dominate the commission.
The one major amendment to the bill is the addition of a special election date set for August 25, 2026, which would add the state question to the August primary runoff ballot as an emergency. But while the bill itself passed along party lines (35 Ayes and 8 Nays), the vote for the special election failed because it did not get a two-thirds approval on the Senate floor, which the Constitution requires.
In addition to the seven Democrats and one Republican who voted no on the entire measure, members of the far-right Freedom Caucus and other Republicans who often vote in line with them helped shut down the special election (27 Ayes and 17 Nays).
HJR 1024 has been rescheduled on the Senate floor this week for another attempt to approve the special election for August.
Democrats, who, by virtue of being the minority, have no appointment power on the commission, worry that Republicans hope to consolidate their control across all three branches of government.
Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt pointed out that the plan to have the question appear in August is motivated by a political emergency for Republicans, rather than a concern for Oklahomans at large.
“We know that the most attention on elections is in November,” Kirt said. “This is a purposeful decision to call something an emergency when it is not an emergency. Perhaps it's a political emergency, but it is not an emergency for the people, and it's deeply disappointing.”
