SPENCER v. WYRICK, 2017 OK 19

Petitioners Susan Spencer and Cheri Chandler, Oklahoma registered voters, filed an original proceeding challenging Governor Fallin's appointment of Patrick Wyrick to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Petitioners sought quo warranto relief (or alternatively prohibition) alleging Wyrick was constitutionally ineligible to serve.
The Court assumed original jurisdiction because the matter is publici juris and Article 7 grants broad superintending control.
The majority held quo warranto (not prohibition) is the exclusive remedy to try title to an office and that only certain plaintiffs may bring quo warranto (Attorney General, District Attorney, or an actual contestant for the office).
Petitioners were private, collateral challengers with no claim to the office and thus lacked standing; the action was untimely under the Article 7B selection regime; the Court dismissed the proceeding with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper remedy to challenge eligibility of a sitting Justice	Quo warranto or prohibition may be used to prevent an ineligible appointee from exercising office	Respondent: quo warranto is exclusive for title challenges; prohibition is not available to undo completed acts	Quo warranto is the proper form for title challenges; prohibition unavailable to undo completed appointment
Who may bring quo warranto	Petitioners claimed public interest standing as registered voters of the district	Respondent: only Attorney General, District Attorney, or an actual contestant may bring quo warranto; private collateral attacks barred	Private individual plaintiffs lack standing to bring quo warranto; collateral attack not permitted
Jurisdiction after completion of Article 7B selection process	Petitioners argued other remedies were inadequate and sought Court review	Respondent: Article 7B vests the Judicial Nominating Commission and Governor with authority to determine qualifications; process concluded	Court: Article 7B process was completed; challenges must be made during the constitutional selection stages; Court dismissed for lack of timely challenge and standing
Relief and disposition	Petitioners sought disqualification/removal of Wyrick and prohibition from exercising duties	Respondent sought dismissal and declined fees/costs request	Action dismissed with prejudice; request for fees denied

Sneed v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 683 P.2d 525 (Okla. 1983) (prohibition is not available to try title to an office)
State ex rel. Rucker v. Tapp, 380 P.2d 260 (Okla. 1963) (quo warranto is the exclusive remedy to try title to an office)
State ex rel. Bd. of Regents v. McCloskey Bros., 227 P.3d 133 (Okla. 2009) (identifies proper plaintiffs for quo warranto and bars collateral private attacks)
Fent v. Henry, 257 P.3d 984 (Okla. 2011) (validity of Judicial Nominating Commission decisions when decided by a majority)
Graham v. Cannon, 574 P.2d 305 (Okla. 1978) (procedures for removal of judges and role of Court on the Judiciary)
Romang v. Cordell, 243 P.2d 677 (Okla. 1952) (Supreme Court's duty to review constitutionality when presented by a justiciable controversy)