For almost ten years, Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma have unsuccessfully attempted to rework the state judicial nomination process for partisan gain. This year, it looks like they may finally get their way—if Oklahoma voters play along. On April 13, the Republican-controlled state Senate passed a joint resolution to add a proposed constitutional amendment to the ballot. If voters pass it, they would give the legislature significantly more influence over which judicial candidates go before the governor for a possible appointment to the bench.
The proposal focuses on Oklahoma’s Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), a body created by constitutional amendment in the wake of a series of corruption scandals in the 1960s that involved Oklahoma Supreme Court justices taking bribes from lawyers in exchange for favorable rulings. Although trial court judges are elected in Oklahoma, all appellate vacancies follow a merit selection process that starts with an application to the JNC. Like similar commissions in other states, the JNC screens applicants, conducts interviews, and sends a shortlist of three candidates to Oklahoma’s governor, who is constitutionally required to choose from that list when filling judicial vacancies. No judge may be appointed without first being approved by the JNC, so the commission is a huge part of the selection process.
The structure of the JNC is supposed to prevent any political faction from exercising too much control over the judiciary: The governor appoints six non-lawyer members; the members of the Oklahoma Bar Association elect six lawyer members; the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House appoint one non-lawyer member each; and the commission appoints one member itself. To reduce the partisanship of the commission, there are party balance requirements for appointed commissioners, and terms are limited to two, four, or six years, depending on the seat. Commissioners who are lawyers are prohibited from applying for a judgeship for at least five years after their term ends.
Oklahoma Republicans have long complained about the JNC’s composition, particularly the commissioners elected by the Oklahoma Bar Association. Based largely on previous commissioners’ small-dollar donations to Democratic politicians, conservative groups like the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs have characterized the JNC as dominated by “Democratic partisans.” When testifying about a previous effort to change the JNC, the conservative activist Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network complained that it had “saddled” Oklahoma “with a liberal Supreme Court bent on reinterpreting the law whenever it gets the chance.”
Now, Republicans are back at it. On March 16, the Senate passed House Joint Resolution 1024, a proposal that would restructure the JNC and give the legislature more control over appointments. The bill’s sponsors have made their rationale unusually explicit: When introducing the bill on the Senate floor, state Senator Todd Gollihare stated that because Oklahoma has a Republican supermajority, it is not “equitable” for the party not to have more influence on judicial selection.
The proposed constitutional amendment would eliminate longstanding requirements for partisan balance on the commission, which restrict the governor to no more than three appointees from the same party, and the other appointment authorities to no more than two of their three from the same party. It also eliminates requirements that any members be non-lawyers—a requirement designed to ensure that the commission is representative of the population as a whole, and to prevent insider deals. Crucially, the proposal would also eliminate all of the seats elected by the Oklahoma Bar Association, leaving nominations entirely in the hands of the political branches.
Modest changes to a Republican-controlled body that submits a list of names to a Republican governor might seem inconsequential. But the practical effect would be significant, because the range of choices would be shaped by a commission more responsive to the partisan priorities of the legislature. In a system where the shortlist determines the possibilities for who can take the bench, controlling the inputs can matter as much as controlling the final decision.
This is not the first time Oklahoma lawmakers have pursued such changes. Earlier proposals went even further, including plans to eliminate the commission entirely and replace it with a federal-style system of gubernatorial nomination and legislative confirmation. Although those efforts stalled over disagreements between the House and Senate, they revealed a broader ambition: not just to tweak the process, but to redefine the relationship between the judiciary and elected officials.
Supporters of the current amendment frame it as a question of accountability. According to Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, the “people are not represented by” the current JNC, which, he says, “lacks the transparency necessary to inspire public trust.” From this perspective, increasing legislative control is a way of aligning judicial selection more closely with voter preferences. But the commission’s purpose is to resist exactly that kind of alignment—to ensure that something other than political loyalty determines who becomes a judge. Weakening those guardrails risks transforming the courts into an extension of partisan power, undermining the judicial independence that the state’s constitution is supposed to protect.
Oklahoma Republicans are not alone in attacking nonpartisan judicial nomination processes. In response to high court rulings against abortion restrictions, Republicans in Missouri are pushing to eliminate its own JNC to replace it with direct appointment by the Republican governor. Kansas Republicans are trying to convince voters to amend the state constitution to elect judges in partisan elections, rather than continue with the nonpartisan appointment process. These legislators are following in the footsteps of Republicans in states like North Carolina and Ohio, who have successfully transitioned their states to partisan elections in recent years.
The question before Oklahoma voters is not simply about the structure of a commission, but about the role courts should play in a legal system defined by partisan competition. The proposed changes prioritize ideological alignment over professional experience. As Republican state legislators have shown across the country, that shift is part of a broader movement to undermine judicial independence—and to help them gain total political power.
