Skip to main content
The Full Record
Menu

State Question 845: Judicial Nominating Commission Structure (Legislative Referendum 379)

Statewide — all of Oklahoma

General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026

  • The Legislature referred this amendment as House Joint Resolution 1024 (HJR 1024), received and numbered by the Secretary of State as State Question 845, Legislative Referendum 379. The Attorney General rewrote the ballot title, and the Secretary of State certified the rewritten title to the State Election Board on June 1, 2026. On Aug. 13, 2026 the Attorney General's office filed a corrected ballot title fixing a typo ("non-at-large" to "at-large") and asked that it replace the May version. Its sponsors were Rep. Anthony Moore (House) and Sen. Todd Gollihare (Senate).[1]
  • HJR 1024 passed the House 78-13 (Mar. 12, 2025) and the Senate 35-8 (Apr. 9, 2026), according to the Oklahoma Legislature's bill history. A proposal in the Senate to put it on a special election (Aug. 25) ballot failed 27-17 on Apr. 9 and 29-15 on Apr. 14, so it goes to voters on Nov. 3.[5]

The question on the ballot

This measure amends article 7-B, section 3 of the Oklahoma Constitution, changing the Judicial Nominating Commission’s structure. Currently appointments are based on congressional districts as constituted in 1967. If approved, appointments to the fifteen-member Commission will be as follows: 1) Governor appoints six members, including one from each congressional district as of the time of their appointment; 2) the Oklahoma Bar Association appoints six members, including one from each congressional district as of the date of selection; and 3) no less than eight members select three at-large members. The measure will permit any number of the commissioners to be licensed attorneys in Oklahoma or another state. The prohibition against immediate family members from practicing law will be removed. The measure changes terms so that at-large commissioners would serve a two-year term, and all other commissioners would serve a six-year term. Additionally, it removes restrictions on political party membership for members appointed by the Governor and at-large members. The measure also permits a commissioner to succeed himself or herself. Vacancies will be filled in the same manner as a commissioner is appointed or selected for the remainder of the relevant term. This measure will not have a fiscal impact. Shall the proposal be approved? For the proposal – YES. Against the proposal – NO.[1][6]

The Judicial Nominating Commission is the 15-member body that sends three nominees to the Governor for each vacancy on the state's appellate courts. The amendment would tie the Governor's and Oklahoma Bar Association's appointments to current congressional districts, allow any number of commissioners (or their family members) to be licensed attorneys, remove the limits on how many Governor-appointed and at-large members may belong to one political party, and let commissioners serve consecutive terms. The official ballot title states the measure will not have a fiscal impact.[1][3]

A YES vote means

A yes vote approves the changes to the Judicial Nominating Commission: appointments tied to current congressional districts, no limit on commissioners or family members being attorneys, no party-membership limits on Governor-appointed and at-large members, and commissioners permitted to succeed themselves.

A NO vote means

A no vote keeps the current constitutional rules for the Judicial Nominating Commission in place.

The law today

Per the official ballot title, appointments to the 15-member Judicial Nominating Commission are based on congressional districts as constituted in 1967. Per News9, nine commissioners are non-lawyers who may not have an immediate family member practicing law; of the six the Governor appoints, no more than three may belong to one political party, and of the three at-large members no more than two may; six lawyers are elected by the bar in each district; and members cannot serve consecutive terms.[6][3]

Official fiscal estimate

The official ballot title states: “This measure will not have a fiscal impact.”[1][6]

Read the full text of the measure ↗

Arguments made for

  • “A majority of Oklahomans are ready to modernize how state judicial applicants are vetted and appointed,” said Speaker Pro Tem Anthony Moore, R-Clinton, the author of the resolution, in a March 2025 House press release.[4]
  • Sen. Todd Gollihare, R-Kellyville, the Senate author, said that, with Republican legislative majorities, “it’s not really equitable for the majority party to only have five commissioners where the minority has 10.”[2]
  • Sen. Julie Daniels, R-Bartlesville, on the Senate floor: “We have very few boards and commissions that have these party limits,” she said, adding: “And I believe the idea that attorneys could stack the deck is far-fetched.”[7]

Arguments made against

  • Sen. Carri Hicks, D-Oklahoma City, said: “The Commission is meant to be a check on politics in judicial appointments, yet this makes it easier for a small group aligned by party or profession to control who is nominated to the bench.”[2]
  • Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt, D-Oklahoma City: “Allowing for complete domination by one party is concerning,” she said.[7]
  • Rep. Andy Fugate, D-Oklahoma City, on his website: “Do the math. Six seats picked by the governor. Two more picked by House and Senate leaders. That’s eight of 15. A majority. Today the governor, the speaker and the pro tem all belong to the same party. Under SQ 845, all eight of their picks could legally come from that party, too.”[8]

On record in support

  • Speaker Pro Tem Anthony Moore (R-Clinton), House author of HJR 1024.[4][8]
  • Sen. Todd Gollihare (R), Senate author, who said the party-balance limits put Republicans at a disadvantage.[2][7]
  • Rep. Erick Harris (R-Edmond), who sponsored the interim study behind the reforms.[8]
  • Sen. Julie Daniels (R-Bartlesville), who spoke in favor on the Senate floor.[7]

On record in opposition

  • Oklahoma Policy Institute, which recommends a “No” vote.[8]
  • Senate Democrats, who voted against sending it to the ballot, including Minority Leader Julia Kirt and Sen. Carri Hicks.[7][2]
  • Rep. Andy Fugate (D-Oklahoma City), who voted for HJR 1024 in 2025 and now opposes SQ 845.[8]

Campaign money

As of Sept. 18, 2026, no committee had filed with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to advocate for or against SQ 845, and no independent expenditure groups had reported spending on it (Oklahoma Watch).[7]

Research notes & limits

Oklahoma publishes no official voter pamphlet with pro/con arguments; arguments are quotes from the measure's sponsors and a Senate critic as reported by Oklahoma Voice and the House press office. The question text is quoted from the Attorney General's final ballot title in the Secretary of State's file (page header there reads 'LR 378' although the file is LR 379). The question text is the corrected final ballot title filed Aug. 13, 2026 (the May 29/June 1 version said 'non-at-large' in the term sentence; the correction changed it to 'at-large', matching News9). The corrected title is also posted as the State Election Board's 'Final Ballot Title Corrected (CLEAN)' PDF on oklahoma.gov (s7), which lists SQ 845 and SQ 847 as the only Nov. 3 state questions; a county sample ballot was not retrieved. The Governor's and Bar Association's appointees serve six-year terms per the ballot title. Vote counts are from the Oklahoma Legislature's bill-history page. Added (Oct. 19): supporter and opponent lists come from Oklahoma Watch and NonDoc reporting of lawmakers’ floor remarks, Rep. Fugate’s website as quoted by NonDoc, and NonDoc’s report of the Oklahoma Policy Institute’s "No" recommendation. No registered campaign committee had filed as of Sept. 18 (Oklahoma Watch), so there are no committee finance totals; the Oklahoma Ethics Commission portal was not queried directly. The Oklahoma Bar Association’s position was not found.

Sources · 8

Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.

  1. 1.State Question 845 file: HJR 1024, Attorney General ballot-title letters and final ballot title · Oklahoma Secretary of State · 2026-08-13 Official record
  2. 2.Senate passes ballot measure to overhaul Oklahoma judicial selection, but rejects Aug. 25 election · Oklahoma Voice News report
  3. 3.Oklahoma State Question 845: What SQ 845 would change about judicial nominations · News9 · 2026-10-05 News report
  4. 4.Judicial Nominating Commission Reform Measures Pass House · Oklahoma House of Representatives · 2025-03-13 Official record
  5. 5.HJR 1024 bill information and history (2025-26) · Oklahoma Legislature · 2026-10-19 Official record
  6. 6.SQ 845, LR 379 Final Ballot Title (Corrected, clean) · Oklahoma State Election Board (oklahoma.gov) · 2026-08-13 Official record
  7. 7.State Question 845: What Oklahoma Voters Need to Know Before November 3 · Oklahoma Watch · 2026-09-21 News report
  8. 8.SQ 845: Judicial Nominating Commission amendment would modify membership rules · NonDoc · 2026-10-16 News report