The answer dates back nearly 60 years to one of the biggest political scandals in state history—and a constitutional overhaul that still shapes Oklahoma’s courts today.
Why doesn’t Oklahoma elect every judge?
The answer traces back to one of the darkest chapters in Oklahoma government.
After a bribery scandal involving three Oklahoma Supreme Court justices shattered public confidence in the state’s highest court during the 1960s, Oklahoma voters approved sweeping constitutional reforms that fundamentally changed how many judges reach the bench. Today, some judges still campaign for office, while others are appointed by the governor and later face voters only in retention elections.
The hybrid system has now been in place for nearly six decades, but many Oklahomans remain surprised to learn that the method of selecting a judge depends entirely on which court he or she serves.
A scandal that changed Oklahoma’s judiciary
Until the late 1960s, Oklahoma’s appellate judges—including members of the Oklahoma Supreme Court—were elected in partisan political campaigns.
That changed after a sweeping corruption scandal involving three members of the seven-member Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Former Justice N.S. Corn admitted accepting bribes over many years in exchange for influencing court decisions and implicated fellow Justices Earl Welch and Napoleon B. Johnson. Welch resigned as impeachment proceedings began, while Johnson became the first Oklahoma Supreme Court justice removed from office through impeachment. The scandal dominated headlines, resulted in criminal convictions and permanently damaged public confidence in the state’s judiciary.
In response, Oklahoma leaders proposed a constitutional overhaul that replaced partisan elections for appellate judges with a merit-selection system intended to emphasize qualifications over politics. Oklahoma voters approved the amendment in 1967, permanently reshaping how the state’s appellate courts are staffed and reinforcing the public’s role in determining how state government operates.
Oklahoma uses two different systems
Today, Oklahoma selects judges in two primary ways.
Most trial court judges—including district judges and associate district judges—are generally elected by voters in nonpartisan elections within their judicial districts. If only one candidate files for a position, that judge may be elected without opposition.
The state’s appellate judges, however, are appointed rather than elected initially.
When a vacancy occurs on the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals or the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, the Judicial Nominating Commission reviews applications, conducts interviews and forwards three finalists to the governor. The governor must appoint one of those nominees to fill the vacancy.
Oklahoma’s three appellate courts
Oklahoma is one of only two states with two courts of last resort.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court is the state’s highest court for civil cases and constitutional questions. It also oversees administration of Oklahoma’s judicial system.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is the state’s highest court for criminal cases.
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals serves as an intermediate appellate court, hearing most civil appeals before some cases are reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Why do some judges appear on the ballot without opponents?
After being appointed, appellate judges do not run against challengers.
Instead, they periodically appear on statewide ballots in retention elections.
Rather than choosing between candidates, voters simply answer “Yes” or “No” on whether a judge should remain in office. If a judge fails to receive a majority of “Yes” votes, the office becomes vacant and the appointment process begins again through the Judicial Nominating Commission and the governor.
Until 2024, no Oklahoma Supreme Court justice had ever lost a retention election, when Justice Yvonne Kauger became the first to be voted out under the state’s merit-selection system.
Trial court judges, meanwhile, continue to stand for election when their terms expire, although many races attract only one candidate.
Why the system remains debated
Supporters say Oklahoma’s merit-selection system helps insulate judges from campaign fundraising and political pressure while emphasizing professional qualifications and judicial independence.
Critics argue the Judicial Nominating Commission should be restructured or that governors should have greater authority to appoint judges directly. Lawmakers periodically introduce proposals to change the system, but the constitutional framework adopted in the wake of the 1960s scandal remains largely intact.
Why it matters
Every major legal dispute in Oklahoma—from constitutional challenges and election cases to criminal appeals and disputes over state laws—ultimately reaches judges selected through one of these two systems.
Understanding how those judges reach the bench helps explain why some campaign for office, why others never do, and why Oklahoma’s judicial system looks different from those in many other states.
More than half a century after a corruption scandal transformed Oklahoma’s courts, the system it produced continues to shape the state’s judiciary and remains the subject of continuing debate over the balance between judicial independence and public accountability.
