Revisiting Justice Steven Taylor's 2014 'Kunzweiler-vs-Jordan' Opinion

  The recent Oklahoma Supreme Court Ruling belies a certain hypocrisy among conservatives decrying the end result, this week. For decades we've heard Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and even Justices Scalia and Thomas; who  urge the strict constructionist practice of deciding cases. Yet this week it was precisely that same strict constructionist jurisprudence that brought us a ruling which many of us detest.

Oklahoma Constitution- Section V-23:  Ineligibility to appointment to office -  Interest in contracts.  No member of the Legislature shall, during the term for which he was elected, be appointed or elected to any office or commission in the State, which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during his term of office, nor shall any member receive any appointment from the Governor, the Governor and Senate, or from the Legislature, during the term for which he shall have been elected, nor shall any member, during the term for which he shall have been elected, or within two years thereafter, be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State, or any county or other subdivision thereof, authorized by law passed during the term for which he shall have been elected.

The 2014 Kunzweiler vs Jordan Ruling

  Let's go back to last summer's Tulsa District Attorney race. Two of the three candidates were legislators, and they were asked to vote on District Attorney pay. It is that legislative duty which disqualifies them from filling that office until their current elective term has been expired (Nov. 18th). Senator Crain bowed out on his own, citing the constitutional prohibition. Now, I still agree that the Oklahoma Constitution is poorly written, but none-the-less it must be followed!
  Justice Steven Taylor wrote in his dissenting opinion where he diplomatically rebukes the majority for ignoring the shabby constitutional language so as to give an outcome of what they think is more fair than the constitution allows.
  Here's a snippet of my July,2014 posting:

Justice Steven Taylor
Oklahoma Supreme Court

  Judge Steven Taylor should be applauded for his dissent opinion that the Court “refused to properly construe” the Constitution in this matter. He found that the Court misconstrues the term “elected” to mean “assuming or taking office.”  ”There appears to be a disconnect between the Court’s decision and the plain language of the Constitution", Taylor wrote. “For Tulsa County, the Republican primary runoff will be held on August 26, 2014. No Democrat has filed for the seat. The winner of this runoff will receive a certificate of election, which will be issued…on August 29, 2014…Therefore, under Oklahoma election law, the certified winner of the primary runoff will be deemed elected to the position of Tulsa County district attorney.”

  So Rep. Fred Jordan would be both the elected District Attorney while concurrently serving 3 more months as a State Legislator.  Had the legislature been in special session that Fall (as they were in 2009), Jordan could push through a pay raise for his own office!

Justice Taylor's Crusade For Strict Construction

  Justice Taylor was influential in drawing his colleagues back to a strict constructionist view of the monument ruling. Despite all the ridiculousness of the result, the judges, this time; read  the constitution's plain language and followed it. If the Oklahoma Constitution is not changed promptly, the landmark ruling will lead government bureaucrats to begin their own initiatives to:

• empty all school & city libraries of all religious books
• empty all public museums of all religious artifacts
• empty all public radio stations of all spiritual programming
• empty the Oklahoma National Guard of all Chaplains and chapels

The problem is the lousy language of the Oklahoma Constitution! It may have had some noble intentions for Oklahoma, but as the decades drift by, the institutional memory of those original intentions drift into obscurity.

  The problem is the lousy language of the Oklahoma Constitution! It may have had some noble intentions for Oklahoma, but as the decades drift by, the institutional memory of those original intentions drift into obscurity. I am confident that Oklahoma's founders did not intend to build a soviet-style society which is devoid of any overt and collective spiritual expression. But the Oklahoma forefathers words did not match their intent.

  And so, we are poised to call for an Oklahoma Constitutional Convention or at least a series of proposed amendments to the 150 that are already patched into the 1907 document.  If we decry the recent rulings, like the capitol monument; and if we want a strict-constructionist court; then we need to give them a better document. In fact, if we replace the document, we will replace the justices with it. And given some of the 'loose cannons' on this court, that might be a good idea...

David Van Risseghem