University of Oklahoma Graduate College Scandal
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE SCANDAL AND REFORM: A HISTORICAL STUDY OF CORRUPTION AND REFORM IN OKLAHOMA'S COURT SYSTEM, 1956-1967 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By LEE ARTHUR CARD Norman, Oklahoma 2016 SCANDAL AND REFORM: A HISTORICAL STUDY OF CORRUPTION AND REFORM IN OKLAHOMA'S COURT SYSTEM, 1956-1967 A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY BY _________________________________ Dr. Ben Keppel, Chair _________________________________ Dr. Warren Metcalf _________________________________ Dr. Ronald K. Gaddie _________________________________ Dr. James S. Hart, Jr. _________________________________ Dr. Roberta Magnusson © Copyright by LEE ARTHUR CARD 2016 All Rights Reserved. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Debbie. She has encouraged me in this quest, has proofread my writings, and has put up with messy papers and documents all over our house. She has been a source of inspiration to me, and I can never thank her enough. This book is also dedicated to the Oklahoma lawyers and lawmakers of the 1960s, who skillfully guided the process of reforming a broken judicial system. They overcame the humiliation the legal profession experienced in the scandal and created a judiciary of which Oklahoma can be proud. Finally, the dissertation is dedicated to my dad, William L. Card, and my uncle, G.M. Fuller, examples of Oklahoma lawyer-legislators who served the state honestly and well. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I thank my committee chair and friend, Dr. Ben Keppel. He has skillfully guided me through this process and has provided invaluable advice and counseling. I truly appreciate his patience with me and his professionalism. Most of all, he is a true leader who would not let me quit. I am also grateful to the members of my committee, especially Drs. Warren Metcalf, James Hart, and Keith Gaddie. They have been valuable resources for me and provided me with encouragement and advice. I also thank the University of Oklahoma library staff for their assistance, competence, and their patience with me, as well as the staff at the OU history department. I am grateful to my family and friends. My wife Debbie, to whom this dissertation is dedicated, has been my inspiration for this quixotic adventure. My children, Sarah Humphreys, Matt Card, and Dan Card, as well as their spouses Scott, Hailey, and Jenny, have provided encouragement and support. I know my grandchildren, Kate, Braden, Lauren, Madelyn, Will, Andy, and Brody will grow up with a strong sense of the importance of the past. My former colleagues, Christine Morgan, Holly Oakley, and Lora Stevens provided me with invaluable technical and proofreading help. Finally, I thank my late parents, William L. Card and Alva Card, for their encouragement and their interest in education, history, and government. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements iv Abstract vi Introduction 1 Chapter One: A System in Need of Reform 7 Chapter Two: The State of the Court 55 Chapter Three: Prosecution and the Seeds of Reform 81 Chapter Four: The 1965 Legislature and the Impeachment of Johnson 105 Chapter Five: The Fall of McCarty, the Sneed Plan, and the Election 142 of 1966 Chapter Six: The Enactment of Legislative Reform and the Defeat of 177 the Sneed Plan Conclusion: Oklahoma After Court Reform 206 Bibliography 229 v ABSTRACT In the years 1964 and 1965 Oklahomans learned the shocking details of corruption in the Oklahoma Supreme Court. At least three justices had accepted substantial bribes in exchange for their votes. In the case of at least one justice, this practice had been ongoing for a generation, and rumors of corruption had stained the Court's reputation for years. Oklahoma's judicial framework had been established at statehood and had remained unchanged since that time. All judges were elected in partisan elections, running as members of their political party, which made them political as well as judicial officeholders. No system existed to hold judges accountable for their conduct, other than the ballot box or the unlikely threat of impeachment. At the lowest level of the judiciary, unqualified justices of the peace worked under a system which gave them a vested interest in the outcome of the cases they heard. Oklahoma judges were therefore vulnerable to public pressure yet immune from personal accountability. I argue that Oklahoma's domination by one political party and the control of the legislature by conservative rural legislators helped to prevent reform of Oklahoma's judicial system, even after the graft had been exposed. It was only after the Republican Party began to establish a foothold and the legislature had been reapportioned that meaningful changes to the court structure became viable. Oklahoma's governor and legislators displayed considerable political acumen in vi presenting a court reform proposal acceptable to the state's voters. These reforms created a considerably more professional and competent judiciary in Oklahoma. vii INTRODUCTION Between 1963 and 1967, Oklahoma experienced a catastrophic bribery scandal at the highest level of the state's court system. Oklahomans learned to their horror that, in exchange for large amounts of cash, justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided cases in favor of the highest bidder. Exposure of the scandal led to the successful prosecutions of those responsible and, after considerable skillful political maneuvering, to significant reform in Oklahoma's judicial system. These events have not yet received full historical study. As time has passed, the judicial scandal and reform have faded from political memory. To the extent they are remembered at all, the events bring a picture of the outrageous, brazen nature of the crimes and the enormous, long- standing criminality committed by men who were equally outrageous and brazen. In this dissertation I propose to analyze the impact of the scandal and evaluate the nature of the reform which resulted from it. Looking past the surface drama of the scandal, the corrupt events conform to a narrative of corrupt politics which are a part of Southern history in the mid-twentieth century. Large personalities and extravagant demonstrations of theatrical skill are important in one-party systems where issue debate is seldom heard and many important policy decisions are made by an economic and political elite behind closed doors and with little connection to voters. 1 At the time the crimes were committed, Oklahoma had been a state for only a half-century. White immigration to Indian Territory had commenced only after the Civil War, while Oklahoma Territory had been open for white settlers for less than twenty years before statehood came in 1907. Like all frontiers, Oklahoma reflected the backgrounds and cultures of its new inhabitants. Its political leadership particularly reflected influences of the West, the South, and Native Americans. We nostalgically think of early Oklahoma as a western frontier but overlook its position as a geographic, political, and cultural borderland of the South. Despite the presence of the distinctive feature of a Native American population involuntarily assigned to federally designated "Indian Country", many of the new white settlers, natives of the South, envisioned the new state in which "white over black" was the strongest assumption. Early Oklahoma was also a place in which people of energy and intelligence could improve their lot in life. However, the absence of established governmental rules offered opportunities for devious, outsized personalities to exploit others for their own benefit. Thousands of Native Americans and freedmen lost their allotments to hucksters and embezzlers. A generation later O.A. Cargill, Hugh Carroll, N.S. Corn, and others would continue this practice of exploiting innocent workers and governmental weakness. For the most part, Oklahoma's constitution was written by white men with Southern roots. In writing Oklahoma's constitution, the drafters relied enormously on the advice of populist Democrat William Jennings Bryan. 2 Populism, a political movement which was fading in other sections of the country, still thrived in Oklahoma in 1907, and the constitution reflected that school of political thought. Oklahoma's judicial framework also reflected this. One of populism's features, the long ballot with many elected officials, played a significant role in the scandal which came a half-century later. To this we must add an attitude toward public institutions and public spending on them. The great Southern historian C. Vann Woodward described the propensity of Southern Reconstruction-era political leaders to pay public employees penuriously, thus being penny-wise and pound-foolish. This occurred in Oklahoma as well. The judicial scandal and subsequent reform had a permanent effect on Oklahoma's political and legal landscape, and they deserve serious historical attention. First, this work will explore the weaknesses of the political and legal system which allowed the scandal to occur. Secondly, I will explore the efforts to expose graft in the highest level of Oklahoma's court system, the resistance to the enactment of reform, and the demonstration of extraordinary political skill and leadership in the eventual passage of the constitutional amendments achieving judicial reform. Lawyers dominated the state's political structure. Many of the legislators who championed and ultimately enacted judicial reform were attorneys, who comprised the largest single occupation in the legislature. Reform was led by Oklahoma lawyers, hundreds of whom acted bravely and capably in fixing a corrupt and broken system. However, this work will also discuss the inherent potential conflict between being a part-time legislator and a full-time lawyer. 3 Most lawyer-legislators served their districts honorably and capably, using their legal training to draft and pass legislation which benefited the state and their districts. Some, certainly not most, lawyer-legislators abused their state office for the gain of their clients and themselves, blurring or obfuscating the line between representing their clients and representing their constituents.