close
close

Fact checks on the Oklahoma Supreme Court campaign advertising

Posted on by Kennedy
Fact checks on the Oklahoma Supreme Court campaign advertising

play

Outside groups have spent at least $3.4 million on political advertising ahead of the Nov. 5 vote to retain three Oklahoma Supreme Court justices. The three justices, James Edmondson, Noma Gurich and Yvonne Kauger, were all previously appointed by Democratic governors. Voters can decide whether they want to stay on the Supreme Court for another six years. The Frontier used court documents and other records to verify the claims in some political ads.

Claim: Immigrant decision was 'legislation from the bench'

Claim: The three judges up for arrest decided to “make it harder to protect Oklahomans from illegal immigrants arrested for crimes.”

Source: People for Opportunity made this claim in an ad that accused judges of “legislating from the bench.”

Fact check: Mostly wrong

The Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2011 ruled on a state law that made it illegal to transport immigrants into the U.S. without legal permission or provide them with public benefits.

While the court upheld almost all of the law, it found unconstitutional a portion that would have deemed people accused of felony or drunken driving a flight risk if they were in the United States without legal permission. A judge could use the flight risk rating as a reason to set a higher bail or deny bail.

Edmondson, Gurich and Kauger agreed with the majority opinion, which said bail for non-capital offenses can only be denied “when the evidence of guilt is obvious or the presumption is strong” and for reasons of safety the community.

The justices wrote that the rest of the law was constitutional and “it is not the function of the Supreme Court or any other court to address the appropriateness, expediency, wisdom, or practicality of any law as a working proposition.”

Judges' decisions don't always align with a community's concerns, said Dave Bond, a spokesman for People for Opportunity. He said classifying an immigrant in the U.S. illegally charged with certain crimes as a flight risk would simplify bail decisions.

— Ari Fife

Claim: Oklahoma Supreme Court used COVID to change state election law

Claim: Oklahoma Supreme Court justices used COVID-19 to change the state's election law.

Source: “With the support of liberal litigators, they used COVID to change Oklahoma’s election law,” said a television ad in which 46 Action PAC paid for lawsuits.

Fact check: Mostly wrong

The Oklahoma League of Women Voters and two Oklahoma residents sued the secretary of the Oklahoma State Election Board in 2020, asking the state Supreme Court to require the state to change the instructions for submitting mail-in ballots.

Oklahoma had told absentee voters that they must attach an affidavit to their ballots that must be signed before a notary. But state law allows people to legally sign affidavits without a notary, under penalty of perjury, the lawsuit argued. The petitioners argued that voters need to be informed that there is an alternative to notarizing ballots because of an expected increase in absentee voting in the 2020 election due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. The court ruled 6-3 that current state law allows ballots to be cast without notarized affidavits. Edmondson, Gurich and Kauger joined the majority opinion in this case.

Oklahoma lawmakers quickly moved to pass a bill requiring notarization of mail-in ballots ahead of the June 2020 primary election. The bill also allowed voters to include a photocopy of their photo ID instead of a notarized signature in the event of a public health emergency. Gov. Kevin Stitt signed the bill three days after the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision.

The Frontier contacted 46 Action by phone and email but received no response.

—Brianna Bailey

Claim: Judges are nominated by a “liberal, unelected Judicial Nominating Commission.”

Claim: Oklahoma Supreme Court justices are nominated by the liberal, unelected Judicial Nominating Commission.

Source: This claim was made in a dark money ad by the group People for Opportunity.

Fact check: Mixed

While it is true that members of the Judicial Nominating Commission are not elected, the commission is nonpartisan and its members are appointed by the governor, the Oklahoma Bar Association and state legislatures.

Oklahomans approved the creation of the commission in the 1960s through a state request following a bribery scandal among judges. The 15-member commission consists of six attorneys and nine non-attorneys who evaluate candidates to fill vacancies on the state's highest courts. The governor selects judges from among three candidates selected by the commission.

In recent years, some Republican lawmakers have sought to change or eliminate the Judicial Nominating Commission. They argue the commission is opaque, favors Democrats and allows too many members to be appointed by the Oklahoma Bar Association. Supporters of the commission say it will be able to consider candidates for judicial office based on their merits rather than their ideology.

— Kayla Branch

Claim: Court blocked Ryan Walters from sending money to private religious schools

Claim: The Oklahoma Supreme Court has blocked Ryan Walters from sending money to private religious schools.

Source: The dark money group Protect Our Freedoms LLC said in a campaign mailer that Ryan Walters “planned to illegally send your tax dollars to private religious schools. Luckily, our Supreme Court stopped him.”

Fact check: Mostly true

The Oklahoma Supreme Court in June rejected a plan to create a Catholic charter school funded with state tax dollars. Oklahoma State Schools Superintendent Ryan Walters supported the creation of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Charter School.

The state Supreme Court ruling ruled that it was unconstitutional for Oklahoma to directly fund religious schools. Justices Edmondson, Kauger and Gurich joined the majority opinion in this decision.

Part of the state funding still goes to religious schools through private school vouchers.

The ruling had no impact on Oklahoma's voucher program because the money is sent to parents and not directly to religious schools.

—Brianna Bailey

This is how the rating system works

TRUE: A claim backed by facts

Mostly true: A claim that is mostly true, but also contains some inaccurate details

Mixed: A claim that contains a combination of accurate and inaccurate or unproven information

True, but misleading: A statement that is factually true but omits important details or context

Mostly wrong: A claim that is mostly false, but also contains some accurate details

INCORRECT: A claim that has no basis in fact

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *