Group criticized for effort to sway judicial elections, but that’s how the democratic process works
During the 2024 legislative session, the Oklahoma Council for Public Affairs lobbied the state Legislature to change our system of selecting judges to one that mirrors the national government model.
A piece I co-wrote explained why. Although OCPA had some valid criticisms, I believe those could be addressed without reforming the entire system.
Now, OCPA is using the current system to attempt to influence the outcome of judicial retention ballots for three state Supreme Court judges they view as out of step with the preferences of Oklahoma voters. Supporters of the current system – and ostensibly of these judges – are crying “foul.”
The Oklahoma Constitution requires that judges on the state’s three appellate courts stand before voters on a retention ballot every six years to remain in office.
This adds a bit of democratic legitimacy to these offices.
However, using the democratic process means accepting democratic action to influence the decision of voters. Critics of OCPA’s efforts to influence of the outcome of these retention votes seem to have put themselves in a position of saying they support the democratic process for retaining judges, but they do not want citizens, and certainly not organized groups of citizens (i.e., “interest groups”) sharing information and their views on these candidate to the electorate – democracy without democratic activity.
Voting in down ballot races such as retention ballots for judges trails behind voting in races for governor or president.
For example, in 2022, 11% fewer voters participated in voting to retain judges than in the governor’s race. In 2020, a similar drop-off occurred from the presidential race.
Moreover, voters have very little knowledge of the judges they are voting to retain, as rarely is there any attention given to these races. This means most voters are casting a vote without knowledge of the specific job or rulings any given judge has made.
If we are going to place the retention of judges in the hands of voters, surely we should want those voters to be informed on the candidates they are voting for or against.
According to Oklahoma Voice, People for Opportunity, a political action committee closely associated with OCPA, has spent about $156,000 on television ads to influence voters in races for three specific Supreme Court judges. Even if this amount were to be doubled, it would still be a relatively modest sum for advertising on three statewide races. And given that there has never been a judge rejected for retention, convincing voters to vote against all three may be a tall order.
All four judges on the 2022 retention ballot received over 60% of the vote.
It seems to me that critics of this effort have one of two legitimate approaches to the OCPA’s efforts.
They can organize and mount a counter campaign to provide information to voters on why these judges should be retained or they can join OCPA’s reform efforts on the limited issue of discontinuing the retention ballot.
The first option would have the benefit of increasing voters’ knowledge of the candidates and thus their ability to make informed decisions on judicial retention ballots.
The second would recognize that the problem of adequately informing the public of judicial candidates might create its own set of issues and that perhaps the democratic process isn’t entirely suitable for decisions regarding members of the judiciary.
However, the position critics seem to be taking is one of demanding a democratic process for retaining appellate court justices while simultaneously opposing efforts to inform the public about the decisions made by those judges and efforts to influence voters’ decisions accordingly.
That seems rather anti-democratic.