OKPOLICY.ORG
On Nov. 3, Oklahoma voters will decide State Question 845, which would change who can serve on the panel that nominates the state’s top judges. To understand what’s at stake, it helps to look back nearly 60 years to an Oklahoma judicial bribery scandal that Time magazine called one of the worst in American history.
• Download a copy of OK Policy’s SQ 845 Fact Sheet
• Watch OK Policy’s State Question Town Hall on YouTube for an overview of both state questions
• Read OK Policy’s position on both state questions
• What’s on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 elections in Oklahoma?
Oklahoma created its Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) in 1967 after some Oklahoma Supreme Court justices took bribes in exchange for favorable rulings. At the time, positions on Oklahoma’s highest courts were directly elected like other politicians: a partisan primary and then a general election. Campaigning created the ideal environment for bribery and corruption to fester. In response to the scandal, voters replaced direct elections for those judges with a system that puts distance between politics and the selection of Oklahoma’s highest courts.
Today, the 15-member JNC screens applicants for vacancies on the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court of Civil Appeals and lower courts if a vacancy occurs outside of an election. The JNC sends a short list of nominees to the governor, who appoints judges from that list.
The commission was designed to balance competing interests: six lawyers elected by the Oklahoma Bar Association, six non-lawyers appointed by the governor, and three appointed at-large members. Current rules limit partisan concentration, restrict appointed commissioners from being lawyers or having immediate family who practice law, and prevent commissioners from serving consecutive terms. These restrictions were made to limit conflicts of interest and lower the risk of corruption in the courts.
Lawmakers this year put SQ 845 on the ballot to ask voters to rewrite several of those rules.
SQ 845 would update geographic representation to reflect Oklahoma’s current congressional districts. It would remove restrictions on lawyers and their immediate family members serving in appointed positions, eliminate political-party balance requirements for governor-appointed and at-large members, and allow commissioners to serve consecutive terms up to 12 years.
Supporters describe these changes as modernization. The geographic requirements still reference congressional districts as they existed when the JNC was created in 1967 despite decades of population change.
Supporters argue current restrictions unnecessarily limit who can serve, say more legal expertise could improve vetting, and believe the political make-up of commissioners should mirror that of the legislative and executive branches.
Opponents see the same provisions differently.
The limits on lawyers, family relationships, and political-party representation were designed to distribute influence and reduce the risk of corruption. Removing them would allow all appointed commissioners to come from the same political party and for lawyers to occupy more seats on a commission that determines which lawyers can become judges.
That does not mean those commissioners would act improperly. Safeguards are not created because misconduct is certain. Instead, they reduce opportunities for conflicts of interest and concentrated political influence.
Allowing consecutive terms presents a similar tradeoff. Supporters say longer service preserves institutional knowledge. Opponents worry commissioners seeking another term could become more responsive to those who control their reappointment rather than the interests of everyday Oklahomans.
These questions matter beyond the legal community. Oklahoma’s highest courts make decisions that affect everyday Oklahomans. On issues ranging from access to the democratic process to the fairness of home insurance policies, these courts decide if laws comply with the state Constitution and if officials and state agencies have properly followed the law. How judges reach the bench affects the independence of a branch of government meant to check the other two and uphold the rights of all Oklahomans.
SQ 845 asks voters whether we should remove safeguards originally designed to spread power among different people and interests.
While OK Policy rarely takes positions on state questions, we encourage voters to reject SQ 845 because it increases the likelihood of political partisanship and removes important safeguards.
Oklahoma created the JNC after seeing what can happen when confidence in the courts breaks down. There is no reason to weaken protections intended to preserve that confidence.
