Oklahomans sent a message last week when they voted, for the first time in state history, to oust a sitting member of the Oklahoma Supreme Court while two other justices came within a whisker of sharing the same fate. The question is whether defenders of the status quo will listen to the voters.

In 1967, Oklahoma voters chose to alter our state’s judicial-selection system, including retention-ballot elections for key judicial appointees. Public evaluation of judges was always supposed to be a key component of the process.

But in the 57 years that have since passed, Oklahomans typically had little information provided about the judges they were supposed to evaluate. As a result, no member of the Oklahoma Supreme Court ever fell short on a retention-ballot vote before this year.

That changed in 2024. For the first time, Oklahomans were provided information on the justices facing a retention vote. For the first time, citizens had a way to evaluate judicial performance. And, for the first time, voters chose to remove a justice from the Oklahoma Supreme Court bench.

Oklahomans voted against the retention of Justice Yvonne Kauger. Next year, someone else will fill her spot on the court.

Two other justices escaped ouster by only the smallest of margins. Out of more than 1.4 million votes cast, Justice James Edmondson and Justice Noma Gurich were retained by a margin of 29,253 and 7,555 votes, respectively.

Majorities in at least six out of every seven counties voted in favor of removing Edmondson and Gurich from the bench.

The justices’ defenders embraced “the sky is falling” rhetoric in response to the public campaign. Their complaints have no merit. In reality, critics are upset that Oklahoma’s system is finally working as designed.

It is not sad that Oklahoma voters had a real campaign for this year’s retention elections that included substantive issues. The tragedy is that voters went nearly six decades without a credible retention-election process.

For too long, judges were practically guaranteed retention so long as the judge was not caught committing a crime himself. That set the bar far too low. Oklahomans deserve judges in our courtrooms who don’t legislate from the bench, not an opaque system that allows judges to generate their preferred policy outcomes. Citizen review of judicial performance and rulings should be the norm, not the exception.

It’s time those who yearn for the “good ol’ days” when retention elections were a mere formality face reality. Oklahoma voters across the state were thrilled to have a serious debate this year, and their votes prove it. This year’s results were in marked contrast to the typical results seen in the past when justices were retained with little public debate.

The message Oklahoma voters sent with this week’s vote is simple: The days of judicial retention elections being a farce are over.