Oklahoma: House adopts resolution directing Oklahoma Supreme Court to not “interfere” with state’s abortion laws

I previously mentioned Oklahoma HR 1004 that addresses abortion laws in the state and, in effect, directed the state’s judiciary to stay out of the subject. That resolution has now passed the House.

HR 1004 as adopted by voice vote starts by rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with abortion, citing specifically Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It then calls on state public officials, including judges and justices specifically, to “exercise their authority as appropriate in their respective jurisdictions to stop the murder of innocent unborn children by abortion.”

The next paragraph, however, is specifically directed at state judges.

THAT Oklahoma judges and specifically justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court are directed not to interfere with this Legislature’ s right to clarify Oklahoma criminal law regarding abortion per Section 36 of Article V of the Oklahoma Constitution.

That particular section of the state’s constitution deals with the legislature’s power.

The authority of the Legislature shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, and any specific grant of authority in this Constitution, upon any subject whatsoever, shall not work a restriction, limitation, or exclusion of such authority upon the same or any other subject or subjects whatsoever.

The resolution appears to target two decisions by the Oklahoma Supreme Court from late 2016:

  • In October 2016, the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a 2015 law (SB 642 of 2015) that dealt with restrictions on abortions (parental consent for minors, tissue preservation, inspection of clinics, and legal liability of abortion providers). That decision was 9-0.
  • In December 2016 the court again ruled 9-0 that a law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges (SB 1848 of 2014) was also unconstitutional.

Oklahoma: House and Senate appear to near agreement on restructuring state’s supreme court seats; bills specify 2 at-large justices come from counties with a population under 75,000

A plan to redistrict the Oklahoma Supreme Court appears nearing House and Senate agreement, with the House’s plan to require justices from more rural counties winning the day.

Currently the 9 members of the Supreme Court are appointed from 9 districts, but run statewide for yes/no retention elections.

HB 1925 as approved by the House last month and by the Senate Judiciary committee earlier this week would provide that starting in November 2017

  • 5 justices would be appointed, 1 for each Congressional District as constituted on November 1, 2017. For transition purposes, the current seats from Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would turn into Congressional-District based seats.
  • 4 justices appointed at-large, however 2 justices must come from counties with a population of less than 75,000. The current seats from Districts 2, 7, 8, and 9 would transition to at-large.

The justices would still run statewide for yes/no retention elections.

 

Special Edition: Oklahoma fee/fine/cost legislation in the 2017 session

HB 1361 Prohibits imprisonment of defendants for nonpayment of fines, costs, fees and assessment. In House Judiciary – Criminal Justice and Corrections Committee.

HB 1476 Provides “It is the policy of this state that no person shall be incarcerated for debt.” Deletes authority of trial court to convert sentences to pay a fine, cost, fee, or assessment into jail sentences. Repeals provision allowing court to send nonpayment notice to Department of Public Safety in order to recommend suspension of driving privileges. In House Judiciary – Criminal Justice and Corrections Committee.

HB 2289

  • Authorizes courts to waive outstanding fines, costs and fees under certain circumstances.
  • Provides payment/installment plans ordered by court may not exceed 10% of “discretionary income” and defines “discretionary income” as 150% over federal poverty line.
  • Directs Supreme Court to promulgate rules related to reporting and payment requirements and collection and distribution methods.
  • Provides for the establishment of pilot financial obligation payment program to determine whether offenders can make consistent payments of their court-ordered financial obligations for two (2) years in exchange for a waiver of the remaining fines, fees and court costs.

In House Appropriations and Budget Committee, Public Safety Subcommittee.

SB 121 Provides the court may adopt an alternative procedure for collecting an outstanding payment in misdemeanor cases. In Senate Judiciary Committee.

SB 272 AS AMENDED BY SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

  • Directs automatic 12 month deferral of certain fines, fees and court costs for certain individuals recently released from imprisonment.
  • Allows after 12 months for court to waive fines, fees, and costs outright, extend deferral, or enter into payment plan.

Approved as amended by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/21/17.

SB 340 AS APPROVED BY FULL SENATE

Provides if defendant convicted in municipal criminal court of record for violation of city ordinance is without means to pay the fine or costs, and no undue hardship would result, the municipal judge may direct the defendant to perform community service at a rate of not less than the current federal minimum wage.

Approved by full Senate 2/20/17.

SB 342 AS APPROVED BY FULL SENATE

Creates task force to analyze fines, fees and court costs assessed throughout criminal justice process. Requires task force report by November 30, 2019 on

  1. The percentage of owed fees, fines and costs that are actually paid;
  2. How local and state governmental budgets are supported by fees, fines and costs;
  3. How fees, fines and costs contribute to jail and prison populations; and
  4. Recommendations for improvement to the existing system.

Approved by full Senate 3/22/17.

SB 689 AS APPROVED BY FULL SENATE

  • Provides absent a finding of willful nonpayment by the offender, the failure of an offender to pay fines and costs may not serve as a basis for revocation or probation.
  • Authorizes courts to waive outstanding fines, costs and fees under certain circumstances.
  • Provides payment/installment plans ordered by court may not exceed 10% of “discretionary income” and defines “discretionary income” as 150% over federal poverty line.

Approved by full Senate 3/21/17.

SB 793 AS APPROVED BY FULL SENATE

Creates Corrections and Criminal Justice oversight task force. Requires Department of Corrections deliver to task force data on, among other things, the amount and percentage of discretionary income each person under DOC supervision or control pays monthly that goes towards court fees, fines, and costs and the number of supervision extensions made due to failure to pay fines and fees.

Approved by full Senate 3/21/17.

Oklahoma: Senate approves 37-3 bill to require all District Court nominees have tried at least 3 jury trials; no other state has such a provision

A plan (discussed here) to require nominees for Oklahoma’s main trial court (District) have jury trial experience has cleared the Senate.

Many, but not all, states require their judges be “attorneys” or in some cases “practicing attorneys”. And the Oklahoma constitution already requires “a minimum of four years’ experience as a licensed practicing attorney” or service as a judge of some other court of record before taking to the District Court bench. The same constitutional provision also allows the legislature to add to these criteria (“and shall have such additional qualifications as may be prescribed by statute.”)

Under SB 708 of 2017 those “additional qualifications” would now include “experience as lead counsel in a minimum of three (3) jury trials brought to verdict prior to filing for such office or appointment.” No other state has such a trial-experience provision.

SB 708 having passed the Senate 37-3 on March 21 has been sent to the House.

Oklahoma: House and Senate advance plans to change structure of state’s supreme court, end merit selection

The Oklahoma House and Senate this week advanced bills to change the way the state’s appellate courts in general, and their supreme court in particular, are selected and structured.

Supreme Court Districts

On the House side, HB 1925 approved 77-16 would change the Supreme Court judicial districts (discussed here), creating 5 district-specific and 4 at-large seats on court.

  • 5 justices would be selected, 1 for each Congressional District as constituted on November 1, 2017. For transition purposes, the current seats from Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would turn into Congressional-District based seats.
  • 4 justices would be selected at-large, however 2 justices must come from counties with a population of less than 75,000. The current seats from Districts 2, 7, 8, and 9 would transition to at-large.

Justices would still have to face statewide yes/no retention elections.

SB 213 approved 44-1 also addresses Supreme Court judicial districts. Under that plan

  • 5 justices would be selected, 1 for each Congressional District as constituted on November 1, 2017.
  • 4 justices would be selected at-large. There is no mention of selection from rural counties

Appellate Court Selection

On the selection side, the Senate advanced two constitutional amendments.

SJR 43 approved 37-8 ends merit/commission selection for the state’s appellate courts. Instead, the governor would nominate an individual and submit his/her name to the Judicial Nominating Commission for a review as “qualified” or “not qualified”. The nominee would then be subject to Senate confirmation and yes/no retention elections.

SJR 44 approved 38-7 would keep the state’s merit/commission selection system but require the Judicial Nominating Commission send the Governor 5 names (currently 3) for consideration and allow the Governor to ask for another list, for a total of 10 names. It requires the nominee be subject to Senate confirmation and provides if Senate fails to act within certain time frame(s) the nominee is confirmed by default. Once confirmed, the judges/justices would be subject to yes/no retention elections.

Oklahoma: House approves 85-11 plan to expand who can carry guns into courthouses

A bill discussed here to allow Oklahoma elected officials to carry firearms into the courthouses of the county they serve in cleared the House yesterday.

HB 1104 as amended provides an elected official with a handgun license may carry a concealed handgun when acting in the performance of their duties within the courthouses of the county in which he or she was elected.

A committee amendment was added to make clear that this did not permit courtroom carry (“The provisions of this paragraph shall not allow the elected county official to carry the handgun into a courtroom.”)

The Oklahoma bill is similar to one enacted in Arkansas in 2015 (SB 159 discussed here and here).

HB 1104 now goes to the Senate.

Oklahoma: House committee approves plan to change Supreme Court districts, create 5 district-specific seats and 4 at-large seats on court; 2 at-large picks must come from rural counties

The latest plan to change the way Oklahoma Supreme Court justices are picked cleared the House Judiciary – Civil and Environmental Committee yesterday.

Currently the state is divided into 9 Supreme Court districts. The state constitution requires a nominee for a vacancy on the court must be a “a qualified elector in the district for at least one year immediately prior to the date of filing or appointment.” If named to the court, they face voters statewide on a yes/no retention election.

That “qualified elector” issue has been somewhat of a contested point, as accusations have been made that the latest pick to the Supreme Court does not meet the criteria, see media reports regarding a pending lawsuit in the matter here. A special assistant attorney general has called the lawsuit “frivolous.” A hearing on that lawsuit is set for today.

Under HB 1925 as approved in committee the currently serving Supreme Court justices would continue to operate under the old 9-district system. New nominations/appointments would use a new two-part system.

  • 5 justices would be selected, 1 for each Congressional District as constituted on November 1, 2017. For transition purposes, the current seats from Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would turn into Congressional-District based seats.
  • 4 justices selected at-large, however 2 justices must come from counties with a population of less than 75,000. The current seats from Districts 2, 7, 8, and 9 would transition to at-large.

As I noted last year when something similar came up in Washington, 10 states have some form of district system for their courts of last resort. Details on the 10 states below the fold.

Continue reading Oklahoma: House committee approves plan to change Supreme Court districts, create 5 district-specific seats and 4 at-large seats on court; 2 at-large picks must come from rural counties