close
close

first Drop

Com TW NOw News 2024

    • Election Retention Fact Checks in the Oklahoma Supreme Court
    news

    Election Retention Fact Checks in the Oklahoma Supreme Court

    Vaseline Posted on

    play

    Outside groups spent at least $3.4 million on political ads ahead of the Nov. 5 vote on whether 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 get to decide whether they should stay on the Supreme Court for another six years. The Frontier used court filings and other documents to verify claims in some political ads.

    Claim: Deciding on immigrants was ‘legislating from the bench’

    Claim: The three judges sentenced to retention “ruled to make it more difficult to protect Oklahomans from illegal immigrants arrested for crimes.”

    Source: People for Opportunity made this claim in an advertisement accusing the judges of “legislating from the bench.”

    Fact check: Mostly false

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

    Although the court upheld virtually the entire law, it was deemed unconstitutional, which would have classified people charged with crimes or drunk driving as flight risks if they had been in the United States without legal permission. A judge could use a flight risk rating as a reason to set a higher bail amount or deny bail.

    Edmondson, Gurich and Kauger agreed with the majority opinion, which stated that bail on non-capital offenses can be denied only “when the evidence of guilt is clear, or the suspicion is great” and for the safety of the community.

    The justices wrote that the rest of the law was constitutional and “it is not the province of the Supreme Court or any court to concern itself with its propriety, desirability, wisdom, or usefulness as a working proposition.”

    Judges’ decisions don’t always reflect a community’s concerns, said Dave Bond, a spokesperson for People for Opportunity. He said classifying an immigrant in the U.S. illegally charged with certain crimes as a flight risk would streamline 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: “Backed by liberal trial lawyers, they used COVID to change Oklahoma election law,” a television ad paid 46 Action PAC for claims.

    Fact check: Mostly false

    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 order the state to change the instructions for submitting absentee ballots.

    Oklahoma had instructed absentee voters to have an affidavit signed in the presence of a notary with their ballot. But state law allowed people to legally sign affidavits without a notary under penalty of perjury, the lawsuit argued. The petitioners argued that voters should be informed that there was an alternative to notarizing the ballots due to an expected increase in absentee voting in the 2020 election due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. The court ruled by a 6-3 vote that existing state law allowed ballots to be submitted without notarized affidavits. Edmondson, Gurich and Kauger sided with the majority in the case.

    The Oklahoma Legislature quickly stepped in and passed a bill requiring notarization for absentee ballots ahead of the June 2020 primaries. The bill also allowed voters to attach a photocopy of their photo ID in lieu of a notarized signature in case of a public health emergency. Gov. Kevin Stitt signed the bill three days after the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its ruling.

    The Frontier contacted 46 Action by phone and email but did not hear back.

    –Brianna Bailey

    Claim: Judges are nominated by ‘liberal, unelected judicial nominating committee’

    Claim: Oklahoma Supreme Court justices are appointed by the “liberal, non-elected Judicial Nominating Commission.”

    Source: A dark money ad from the group People for Opportunity made this claim.

    Fact check: Mixed

    While it is true that the people who serve on the Judicial Nominating Commission are not elected, the commission is nonpartisan and its members are appointed by the governor, the Oklahoma Bar Association and the state’s legislative leaders.

    Oklahomans approved the creation of the commission in the 1960s through a state question after a bribery scandal among judges. The 15-member commission has six attorneys and nine non-attorneys who review candidates to fill spots on the state’s high courts. The governor chooses judges from three nominees that the commission selects.

    In recent years, some Republican lawmakers have tried to change or abolish the Judicial Nominating Commission. They claim the committee lacks transparency, favors Democrats and allows too many members to be appointed by the Oklahoma Bar Association. Defenders of the commission say it can judge candidates for judicial office based on merit rather than ideology.

    – Kayla Tak

    Claim: The court has banned 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 “plotted to illegally send your tax dollars to private religious schools. Fortunately, our Supreme Court stopped him.”

    Fact check: Mostly true

    The Oklahoma Supreme Court in June rejected a plan to establish 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 is unconstitutional for Oklahoma to directly fund religious schools. Justices Edmondson, Kauger and Gurich joined the majority opinion in that decision.

    Some government funding still goes to religious schools through private school vouchers.

    The ruling did not affect Oklahoma’s voucher program because the money is sent to parents and not directly to religious schools.

    –Brianna Bailey

    How the rating system works

    WHERE: A claim supported by factual evidence

    Mostly true: A statement 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 critical details or context

    Mostly false: A claim that is largely untrue, but also contains some accurate details

    False: A claim that has no basis in fact

    Vaseline
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like