This past November, for the first time in state history, Oklahoma voters removed a sitting justice from their State Supreme Court on the retention ballot.
The unprecedented decision reflects the desire of Oklahomans to hold government officials accountable when they overstep their authority.
Before 2024, Voters Had Little information on How to Evaluate the Judiciary
In Oklahoma, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor once they’ve been approved by the Judicial Nominating Commission. After an initial term, the justices must undergo a retention election every six years, when voters decide whether that judge should continue on the bench.
This method for selecting Supreme Court justices in Oklahoma was created in 1967, and since then, no justice had ever been removed from the Court. One big reason why was simply a lack of information. While voters had access to information about the executive and legislative branches, they had little information on the judicial branch and its role, or how well current justices were fulfilling their duties.
OCPA, OCPA Action and People for Opportunity Launch Campaigns to Inform Voters about Oklahoma’s Supreme Court Justices
The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA), OCPA Action, and People for Opportunity each launched campaigns to inform voters about how the judicial branch was intended to work and how the sitting justices were meeting that standard. OCPA published the Oklahoma Judicial Scorecard, a resource that helps Oklahomans understand the impact of the Oklahoma Supreme Court on their state. The scorecard grades judges based on how well they respect their role as the interpreter—not maker—of the law. OCPA explained:
“As John Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ That means it’s not the Court’s role to say what the law should be. Furthermore, we score justices well who interpret the law based on the text as it was written by the legislature without finding ambiguity where none exists. In sum, we expect judicial officers to decide cases based on the facts and the law—not their own individual preferences.”
The scorecard demonstrated how three of the sitting Supreme Court justices–Justice Yvonne Kauger, Justice James Edmondson, and Justice Noma Gurich–all eligible for retention on November 5, 2024, were not living up to their constitutional role of interpreting, not making, the law.
In op-eds, social media ads, more than 50,000 miles of driving across the state, and other outreach–including a multi-million dollar campaign consisting of TV, radio, digital, direct mail and other advertising–OCPA Action and People for Opportunity highlighted how these three justices often made decisions based on their ideological beliefs, rather than interpreting the law as written. With this new information, voters decided to remove Justice Kauger in the retention election, and the other two barely won with margins nowhere near what they enjoyed in the past.
Governor Kevin Stitt has now appointed a conservative originalist to fill Kauger’s seat. Following the decision, Governor Stitt noted:
“This is a historic day. Voters made it clear they are tired of activist judges on our Supreme Court who don’t share our Oklahoma values. It’s time for fresh eyes on the court.”
Why this Matters
Judicial retention elections are no longer a formality in the Sooner State. Thanks to OCPA, OCPA Action, and People for Opportunity, Oklahoma voters are now empowered with the information they need to hold their judiciary accountable. Jonathan Small, the president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, added:
“For too long, judges were practically guaranteed retention so long as the judge was not caught committing a crime himself. That set the bar far too low. Oklahomans deserve judges in our courtrooms who don’t legislate from the bench, not an opaque system that allows judges to generate their preferred policy outcomes. Citizen review of judicial performance and rulings should be the norm, not the exception.”
Related Reading
Oklahoma’s Judicial-retention Elections Are no Longer a Farce
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
Ousted Justice had History of Bizarre Legal Opinions
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
Democrat Judges Defy Oklahoma’s GOP Trend
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs