Opposing SJR 34: The Imperative to Uphold Judicial Independence
In a recent development that could fundamentally alter the landscape of judicial independence in Oklahoma, Senate Joint Resolution 34 (SJR 34) has been proposed, advocating for changes that pose a direct threat to the fairness and impartiality of our judiciary. Authored by Sen. Julie Daniels and Rep. Mark Lepak, SJR 34 proposes amendments to the Oklahoma Constitution that, if enacted, would significantly overhaul the appointment and tenure of justices and judges in the state's appellate courts.
Understanding SJR 34
SJR 34 seeks to introduce four major changes:
It proposes lifetime appointments for Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices, Court of Criminal Appeals Judges, and Court of Civil Appeals Judges, eliminating their current 6-year terms.
It aims to remove the mechanism allowing voters to retain or not retain these judges on a retention ballot at the end of each term.
It suggests removing the Judicial Nominating Commission's (JNC) role in vetting candidates for these positions, giving the governor unchecked power to appoint anyone meeting minimal requirements.
It requires State Senate confirmation for these appointments, a shift towards a more politicized selection process.
The Value of Judicial Independence
The rationale provided by proponents of SJR 34 includes aligning the Oklahoma court selection process with the federal model and addressing perceived misalignments with current Oklahoma values. However, as former Speaker of the House Steve Lewis astutely observes, such arguments miss the core purpose of the judiciary: to interpret and apply the law impartially, free from the ebbs and flows of political climates and public opinion.
The comparison with the federal judicial system overlooks significant periods in U.S. history when Supreme Court decisions have been contentious or even deeply flawed, reflecting the inherent risks of lifetime appointments without adequate checks.
The Role of the JNC
The JNC, established by the vote of the people in 1967, plays a critical role in ensuring that judicial candidates are vetted based on merit, judgment, and the ability to interpret the law. This process has safeguarded the judiciary from political influence and ensured that competence and integrity prevail in our courts. The suggestion that the attorney members of the JNC overpower the non-attorney members is not only unfounded but undermines the collective wisdom and balance that the JNC brings to the judicial selection process.
Why We Must Oppose SJR 34
Opposing SJR 34 is not merely a matter of preserving a procedural status quo; it is about upholding the foundational principle of judicial independence that guarantees every Oklahoman a fair trial and just rulings. The changes proposed by SJR 34 threaten to politicize the judiciary, compromise the quality of judicial appointments, and erode public trust in the impartiality of our courts.
As concerned citizens, legal professionals, and advocates for justice, we must voice our opposition to SJR 34. Let us stand together in support of a judiciary that remains free from political influence, one that serves the principles of fairness and justice above all.
In the words of former Speaker Steve Lewis, "We have two political branches. We don’t need three." Let us ensure that the judiciary remains a bastion of impartiality and integrity, safeguarded from the whims of political change and the influence of transient values.