The House last week failed Senate Joint Resolution 34, which sought to dismantle the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) and would instead have asked voters to allow the governor to appoint judges with House and Senate approval, without the vetting process of the JNC.
There's been a lot of advertising and publicity on this measure, to the point that it's bordering on harassment. I voted against this resolution, which ultimately failed, and I wanted to share my thoughts with my constituents verses letting an outside group spin the message.
The JNC is a 15-member body that was formed 57 years ago after several well-publicized instances of judicial scandals. Six members of the board are lawyers appointed by the Oklahoma Bar Association. Each serves a six-year term and each represents one of the six congressional districts across the state that existed in 1967 when the commission was established.
Another six members are appointed by the governor. No more than three of those appointees can belong to the same political party. Again, each member represents one of the original congressional districts. The three remaining non-lawyer commissioners serve two-year terms as members at large. The speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate each appoint a member to the commission; one is selected by the other 14 members of the commission.
This system was devised to keep politics out of judicial selection to make it fair and representative of all parts of the state.
I heard some compelling arguments about improving the transparency of the JNC process. I agree there's room for improvement, but the JNC now must inform the public of its opening of applications, the list of candidates that have submitted for the position, and its interview schedule of each judicial applicant for the positions that will ultimately be decided by the governor. All members must be present for the interviews, and they then send their top three nominees to the governor for his final selection. If any member has a conflict of interest, they must remove themselves from the selection committee. Nominees must undergo a background check by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.
From the three recommendations from the JNC, the governor ultimately determines the chosen to sit on the bench.
This is an impartial process that addresses the concerns of prior political corruption.
If we changed this to get rid of the JNC and gave the governor sole authority to select judges, there could be some negative repercussions of levying this much power in one office.
We could improve the process without the drastic change required by this resolution. I've spoken with the speaker designate about how to accomplish this going forward. We may need to look at increased transparency for judges or methods to improve the transparency of the interview process. I know we'll continue to examine this issue.
I'm very thankful to be allowed to serve the people of northwest Oklahoma, and I don't take my responsibilities lightly. For each vote I take, I examine the facts and analyze thoroughly the consequences of my decisions. Then I vote based on what I feel is best for the residents of our House district and our state, not on the manipulation of an outside interest group. Just remember, those groups do the mailers and post to sway you to benefit their desires, which don’t always match what is best for our area.
I'm always happy to visit with any constituent who has a question about this or any other measure before the Legislature.
As always, if I can help in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may reach me by email at carl.newton@okhouse.gov, or phone me at 405-557-7339. God bless you and the State of Oklahoma.
Reader Comments(0)