Two bills aimed at reforming state's Judicial Nominating Commission move forward

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – Lawmakers moved two bills forward on Wednesday that would reform Oklahoma’s Judiciary Nominating Commission.

The 15-member commission has been responsible for vetting replacements for State Supreme Court Justices.

The House’s version of the bill, House Joint Resolution 1024, would limit the number of years a person can serve on the commission, either elected or appointed. It would also remove political party affiliation restrictions.

"Currently, the governor is required to appoint six members. No more than three can be from any political party,” said House Speaker Pro Tempore Rep. Anthony Moore (R-Clinton). “So we're removing that currently."

Representative Andy Fugate (D-Oklahoma City) said that change was a sticking point for him.

"This particular change, unfortunately, is going to make this an even more partisan process,” said Fugate. “The last thing we need is partisan politics injected into our court system."

Fugate was the lone “no” vote on the measure before it passed out of the Rules Committee.

The Senate version would give the Governor the power to make judicial appointments directly. The Senate would then have to confirm the picks, mirroring the federal process.

"I think it's important to change this process because it brings more transparency to the process,” said Sen. Brian Guthrie (R-Bixby). “Currently, the JNC is meeting behind closed doors, bringing those nominations to the governor. In this process, it'll be much more transparent."

Talks on reforming the state’s Judiciary Nominating Commission have been going on since the last legislative session. Interim studies were held to review how the 15-member commission worked.

It was put into place in 1967 to protect against political interference after scandals by several of the state’s Supreme Court Justices.

Those for reforming the commission said change was necessary to modernize the process. Those against it said why change what has been working.

"I would argue that what we have today is the gold standard,” said Fugate. “It's intended to be a very nonpartisan process."

Both bills passed through the committee on Wednesday. They were joint resolutions, which would mean if the bills run through each side, the changes would have to go before voters because it is a constitutional amendment.