Washington, DC— Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked Oklahoma 29th in the nation and issued the state's program a C-Minus grade. To shine a light on the typically secretive and toothless systems that often fail to remove abusive and incompetent judges from the bench, legal consumer watchdog group HALT, Inc. released its 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card, analyzing programs in all 50 states, D.C. and the federal circuits.

"Oklahoma's system of judicial oversight is one of the most insular in the nation," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder, pointing to state rules that prohibit ordinary citizens from having any role in the judicial discipline decision-making process. Eight judges and one attorney serve on the state's Court on the Judiciary.

HALT's study also found that Oklahoma rules fail to place meaningful limitations on the reimbursement and compensation that judges may accept in connection with corporate and special interest funded trips. "Oklahoma's laws unfortunately include massive loopholes that still allow members of the judiciary to be wined and dined on the corporate dime," noted Blonder.

Additionally, Oklahoma is one of only nine states in the country that fails to offer a comprehensive Web site dedicated to the judicial discipline process. All that is offered on the Web site for the Council on the Judiciary is rudimentary contact information. "Without access to more detailed online information, it is difficult for citizens to understand how to file a complaint against a judge or how to determine whether a member of the judiciary has a history of misconduct," explained Blonder.

However, HALT's study did find that unlike many states that "gag" complainants, Oklahoma allows its citizens to speak publicly about their ethics complaints against judges. "To protect citizens' right to free speech and ensure that the disciplinary process is working as it should, states should follow Oklahoma's example and allow individuals to speak publicly about a judge's misconduct," stated Blonder.

None of the top five states-Washington, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Arizona and California-scored higher than a B average on HALT's Report Card. More than half of the states received grades in the C range and HALT issued D's to 14 jurisdictions. Two states-Maine and Mississippi-flunked outright.

"At a time when the American public has lost faith in the impartiality and fairness of the nation's judiciary, it's critical that we have an effective system of oversight for judges," stated Blonder.