Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt opposes nomination backed by state’s GOP senators
Gov. Stitt Battles to Block Historic Nomination of Sara Hill to Federal Bench
Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma is facing an uphill battle in his attempt to derail President Joe Biden’s nomination of former Cherokee Nation Attorney General Sara Hill to the federal bench. Despite the support of Oklahoma’s two Republican senators, Stitt has voiced opposition to Hill’s nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, where she would make history as the first Native American woman to serve as a federal judge in the state.
Stitt’s Concerns and Opposition
“Why would President Biden nominate someone to the federal bench who has little, if any, experience as lead counsel in federal litigation? Furthermore, is the best choice an attorney general of a tribal government who has spent a great deal of time and resources actively suing the State of Oklahoma in an effort to overturn 116 years of Statehood and working to strip the state of our authority to enforce laws?” Stitt said in a statement.
A confirmation vote for Hill is scheduled in the full Senate for Tuesday afternoon, and she is expected to be confirmed with the backing of home-state Sens. Markwayne Mullin and James Lankford. The support of these senators is crucial in determining the outcome of the vote, according to GOP lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Stitt’s Concerns about Hill’s Nomination
Stitt argues that Hill’s nomination raises questions about whether she was chosen based on her qualifications or as part of a broader Biden administration agenda to turn half of Oklahoma into federally managed reservations. He references a 2020 Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which held that reservations in the eastern part of the state were never disestablished for the purposes of prosecuting major crimes. Stitt also points to a pending case at the Oklahoma Supreme Court regarding the payment of income taxes by tribal members in the state.
During a panel discussion in 2022, Hill expressed her desire for reservations to remain separate from any state jurisdiction. Stitt argues that Hill’s stance on these issues, as well as her involvement in the amicus brief supporting the McGirt decision, have negatively impacted Oklahoma’s criminal justice system.
Stitt’s Opposition to Tribal Matters
Stitt has a history of disagreements with Oklahoma’s tribes, including disputes over tribal gaming compacts. His attempts to reverse the McGirt decision through petitions to the Supreme Court were unsuccessful. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling allowed Oklahoma to prosecute non-American Indians who commit crimes against Native American tribal members on Indian Country land, resolving at least part of Stitt’s concerns about law enforcement in the state.
Despite Stitt’s opposition, Hill has garnered support from other prominent figures in Oklahoma, including Republican Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond. Drummond highlights Hill’s experience and dedication to public service, particularly in navigating the changes in criminal jurisdiction following the McGirt decision.
Support for Hill’s Nomination
“As attorney general for the Cherokee Nation, Ms. Hill played a key role in navigating the abrupt change in criminal jurisdiction post-McGirt. In addition to working closely with local law enforcement, Ms. Hill directed increased resources to respond to the surge in new tribal prosecutions,” Drummond told the Washington Examiner.
Hill’s nomination is expected to be confirmed with the support of Sens. Mullin and Lankford, despite the opposition from Gov. Stitt and some of his allies in Oklahoma.
How crucial is the support of Oklahoma’s Republican senators in swaying other Republican senators to vote in favor of Hill’s confirmation
Ution.
Stitt’s concern centers around the potential impact of Hill’s nomination on the sovereignty and authority of the State of Oklahoma. He believes that her work as Cherokee Nation Attorney General, particularly in suing the state and advocating for tribal sovereignty, demonstrates a bias against the state’s authority to enforce its laws.
However, supporters of Hill’s nomination argue that her experience as Attorney General and her understanding of tribal law make her a highly qualified candidate for the federal bench. They assert that her nomination is a historic moment for Native American representation in the judiciary and should be celebrated as an important step towards diversifying the federal bench.
Despite Stitt’s opposition, Hill’s confirmation seems likely with the support of Oklahoma’s Republican senators. Both Mullin and Lankford have expressed their confidence in Hill’s qualifications and have publicly endorsed her nomination. Their support is crucial in swaying other Republican senators to vote in favor of confirmation.
The confirmation of Sara Hill would not only be a significant milestone for Native American representation in the federal judiciary but also a notable achievement for the Cherokee Nation. Hill’s nomination serves as a testament to the progress being made towards inclusivity and diversity in the judicial system.
As Hill’s confirmation vote approaches, it remains to be seen whether Stitt’s concerns and opposition will have any substantial impact on the outcome. Nevertheless, the nomination of Sara Hill shines a spotlight on the need for greater diversity in the judiciary and the importance of ongoing efforts to elevate diverse voices and perspectives within the legal profession.
Regardless of the outcome, Hill’s nomination is a reminder of the progress that has been made and the work that still needs to be done in ensuring equal representation and access to justice for all Americans.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
