In 1967, the Oklahoma judicial system was reformed in an effort to remove partisan politics from the state’s judicial offices. From that point forward, appeals judges are appointed through the Judicial Nominating Commission, a thirteen-member board that reviews candidates for judicial positions and then submits a list of nominees to the Governor for appointment. Once appointed, these appellate judges are then placed on a retention ballot. The reform also determined that associate and district judges are to be selected through non-partisan elections for four-year terms.
One argument against these nonpartisan races for judgeships is that they simply decrease the influence of political parties by increasing the influence of various special interests. Judicial candidates may come to depend upon monies supplied by interest groups. Many of these special interests, including trial attorneys themselves, subsequently appear before the benches of judges they help support. These situations might create a perception if not the reality of bias.
In the last several years, a few highly visible problems have also arisen due to the conduct of judicial campaigns. For example, during a Pottawatomie County judicial race, a set of campaign flyers circulated that featured a partially nude photograph of a female candidate. In another case, the higher courts in Oklahoma disqualified an Oklahoma County District Judge from presiding over a high-profile murder trial and a child abuse case because of the appearance of impropriety resulting from her too vigorous, tough-on-crime campaign rhetoric. These incidences, although rare, might compromise the integrity and credibility of the Oklahoma judicial system. Some critics also question the qualifications of judges selected through an election process. For example, “a justice on the State Supreme Court pointed out ... that the election process often produces a ‘nut-case’ judge who would never by picked by the Judicial Nominating Commission process” (Simpson, 2000, p. 138). A judicial selection process based solely on appointment could still rely on existing safeguards through the appeals process of higher courts and the existence in the State of Oklahoma of the Court on the Judiciary, a court that can remove judges in case of misconduct.
An important argument for maintaining the current judicial election system is that it ensures that the judiciary remains responsive to the citizenry served. Retention ballots and judicial elections preserve a highly visible and significant measure of accountability. The current system can be viewed as providing an appropriate balance between sensitivity to prevailing public opinion and oversight by authoritative legal institutions.
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements:
5. “The judicial system in Oklahoma would be better served by appointing associate and district judges rather than selecting them through non-partisan elections.”
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided
26% 43% 17% 7% 7%
6. “The judicial system in Oklahoma would be better served by electing appellate judges through non-partisan races rather than selecting them through the current Judicial Nominating Commission and gubernatorial appointment process.”
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided
4% 13% 43% 34% 6%
7. “The judicial system in Oklahoma would be better served by getting rid of the retention ballot for associate and district judges.”
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided
12% 37% 16% 19% 16%
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This
survey is published for the information of the people of Oklahoma and does
not reflect any particular political viewpoint or position of individual
members, the Advisory Board, any of the members’ employers, or the
University of Central Oklahoma.