Oklahoma Supreme Court hears arguments in Jim Inhofe special election challenge

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case challenging the timing of the special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Jim Inhofe. 

Enid attorney Stephen Jones argues that because Inhofe hasn't officially resigned yet, although he's announced his intent to retire next year, Gov. Kevin Stitt was premature in setting a special U.S. Senate election to coincide with this year's regularly scheduled elections. 

Justice M. John Kane IV called it a "novel question," but with candidate filing for the special election just a few weeks away, the court won't have a lengthy period of time to deliberate. 

Related:Attorney asks Oklahoma Supreme Court to postpone election to fill Jim Inhofe's Senate seat

Jones argues that under the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a vacancy must occur before a special election is set. The 17th Amendment details elections for U.S. senators and references what occurs in the event of a vacancy. 

Jones claims that if Inhofe doesn't step down until Jan. 3, 2023, a special election cannot be held until 2024, with Stitt making an appointment to fill the seat in the interim.

During the hourlong court hearing, justices grilled Jones, questioning whether he had standing to bring the lawsuit and whether the state Supreme Court was the correct venue for the case.

They also questioned him about previous Oklahoma special elections that had been held prior to U.S. senators resigning, which occurred with former Sens. Tom Coburn and David Boren. Both senators announced their retirements, but didn't step down until after special elections to fill their seats. 

Jones said just because those special elections weren't challenged doesn't mean they were constitutional. 

Oklahoma Solicitor General Mithun Mansinghani argued that it is common for elected or appointed officials to announce they will resign at a future date.

He pointed to ongoing confirmation hearings to fill the seat of retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who has not stepped down yet. Similarly, several Oklahoma Supreme Court justices were appointed before their successors had officially stepped down, Mansinghani said. 

He also argued the 17th Amendment was intended to ensure people get to elect their U.S. senator to support direct democracy and avoid, whenever possible, a political appointment. 

"The petitioner seeks to disenfranchise the voters of Oklahoma," Mansinghani said, noting that Jones wants to delay the special election, which would result in a gubernatorial appointment.

Jones disputed that assertion, and said he's just trying to get the state to follow the Constitution, as opposed to state law, when it comes to U.S. Senate appointments. 

"There's nothing un-American about a temporary appointment," Jones said. "History is full of senators serving temporary appointments." 

The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the authority to govern the time, place and manner of elections, which is why legislation governing special elections for U.S. Senate vacancies passed by the Oklahoma Legislature last year should be the supreme law of the land, Mansinghani said. 

Last year, Republican state lawmakers passed and Stitt signed a law that stipulates should a vacancy occur before March 1 in an even-numbered year, a concurrent special election would take place to coincide with regularly scheduled elections that year.

Justices tried to hone in on specifically what it means to have a resignation or vacancy. Justice Noma Gurich said the 17th Amendment doesn't include a definition for the latter. 

Jones maintained that because Inhofe still has a Senate office, attends committee meetings and casts votes, no vacancy has occurred. He also argued that the 17th Amendment supersedes any actions taken by the Oklahoma Legislature. 

"We're not Alice in Wonderland," Jones said. "We're not choosing to give a word a different meaning. The word vacancy, we all understand what that means."