Outside groups have spent at least $3.4 million on political advertising 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 documents and other records to fact-check claims in some of the political ads.

Claim: The three justices up for retention “ruled to make it harder to protect Oklahomans from illegal immigrants arrested for felonies.” 
Source: People for Opportunity made this claim in an ad accusing the justices 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 or provide public benefits to immigrants in the U.S. without legal permission. 

While the court upheld almost all of the law, it struck down as unconstitutional one piece that would have classified people charged with felonies or DUIs as flight risks if they were in the United States without legal permission. A judge could use a flight risk classification as a reason to set a higher bail amount or deny bail. 

Edmondson, Gurich and Kauger agreed with the majority opinion, which held that bail in non-capital offenses can only be denied “when the proof of guilt is evident, or the presumption great” and for community safety. 

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

Judges’ decisions don’t always align with the concerns of a community, 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 streamline decisions on bail.

-Ari Fife

Claim: Oklahoma Supreme Court justices used COVID-19 to change state election law.  
Source: “Supported by liberal trial lawyers, they used COVID to change Oklahoma’s election law,” a television ad 46 Action PAC paid 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 require the state to change the instructions for submitting absentee ballots.

Oklahoma had instructed absentee voters that they must have an affidavit accompanying their ballots signed in front of a notary. But state law allowed for people to legally sign affidavits without a notary, under penalty of perjury, the lawsuit argued. The petitioners argued that voters needed to be informed that there was an alternative to having ballots notarized because of an anticipated surge in absentee voting in the 2020 election due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. The court ruled 6 to 3 that existing state law allowed for ballots to be submitted without notarized affidavits. Edmondson, Gurich and Kauger sided with the majority opinion in the case. 

The Oklahoma Legislature quickly stepped in and passed a bill requiring notarization for absentee ballots ahead of the June 2020 primary election. The bill also allowed for voters to attach a photocopy of their photo identification card instead of a notarized signature in the event of a public health emergency. Gov. Kevin Stitt signed the bill into law three days after the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its ruling. 

The Frontier reached out to 46 Action by phone and email but did not hear back. 
-Brianna Bailey

Claim: Oklahoma Supreme Court justices are nominated by the “liberal, unelected Judicial Nominating Commission.” 
Source: A dark-money ad from the group People for Opportunity made this claim. 
Fact check: Mixed 

The Judicial Nominating Commission is made up of 15 unpaid volunteers. Six of the commissioners are lawyers who are elected by members of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The governor and state legislative leaders appoint eight members and one member is selected by the 14 other commissioners.

Oklahomans approved the creation of the commission in the 1960s through a state question after a bribery scandal among judges. The commission evaluates candidates to fill spots on the state’s high courts. The governor picks justices from three nominees the commission selects. 

In the last few years, some Republican lawmakers have tried to change or get rid of the Judicial Nominating Commission. They argue the commission is not transparent, favors Democrats and allows too many members to be appointed by the Oklahoma Bar Association. Defenders of the commission say it vets candidates for judicial office based on merit rather than ideology. 
-Kayla Branch 

Claim: The Oklahoma Supreme Court stopped 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 “schemed to illegally send your taxpayer dollars to private religious schools. Thankfully, our Supreme Court stopped him.”
Fact check: Mostly true  

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

The state Supreme Court ruling held that it is unconstitutional for Oklahoma to directly fund religious schools. Justices Edmondson, Kauger and Gurich sided with the majority opinion in that decision. 

Some state 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

Rating system: 
True: A claim that is backed up by factual evidence
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 claim that is factually true but omits critical details or context 
Mostly false: A claim that is mostly false but also contains some accurate details 
False: A claim that has no basis in fact

Update: This story was updated on Nov. 1 to include a comment from the group People for Opportunity.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated how members of the Judicial Nominating Commission are selected.