Oklahoma Attorney General Responsible For Two Terrible Supreme Court Decisions Loses Gubernatorial Primary

The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Oklahoma Attorney General Responsible For Two Terrible Supreme Court Decisions Loses Gubernatorial Primary
I'd like to think Drummond lost because of St. Isidore's and Glossip.
It is often said that A.G. is short for "Aspiring Governor." Such was the case in Oklahoma, where Attorney General Gentner Drummond ran for the Republican Gubernatorial Primary. The AP has now called the race, and Drummond lost by less than a percentage point.
I usually do not comment on political races, but Drummond deserves some heat.
First, Drummond argued that his own state's charter school program was unconstitutional. He litigated St. Isidore up to the Supreme Court where the case was affirmed by an equally-divided court. President Trump even mentioned this case in his social media endorsement of Drummond's opponent: "He even SUED to BLOCK a religious based charter school strongly supported by my Administration — Very troubling for Educational Freedom, and an outright attack on Christianity!"
Second, Drummond hired his lifelong friend to review the capital conviction of Richard Glossip. Drummond then asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate the death sentence. That court refused to revisit the case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the OCCA had misinterpreted federal law. There were so many problems with that case. But even more troubling, as my colleague Paul Cassell pointed out, is Drummond's own conduct. Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent that Drummond "collusively excluded . . . highly relevant evidence" from the record.
To add insult to injury, Drummond also seemed to support Justice Gorsuch's disastrous decision in McGirt. Based on the electoral map, Indian country seemed to vote strongly against Drummond.
As the returns stand now, only 2,000 votes separate Drummond and his opponent. I'd like to think that some of those votes are due to the positions Drummond took before the courts.

Facts Only

* Attorney General Gentner Drummond ran for the Republican Gubernatorial Primary in Oklahoma.
* Drummond argued his state's charter school program was unconstitutional and litigated St. Isidore to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the ruling by an equally divided court.
* Drummond hired a friend to review Richard Glossip's capital conviction.
* Drummond asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate the death sentence for Glossip; the court refused to revisit the case.
* The Supreme Court ruled that the OCCA had misinterpreted federal law regarding the Glossip case.
* Justice Thomas wrote a dissent noting Drummond "collusively excluded . . . highly relevant evidence" from the record in the Glossip case.
* Drummond appeared to support Justice Gorsuch's decision in McGirt.
* Electoral returns showed only 2,000 votes separated Drummond and his opponent.

Executive Summary

The Oklahoma Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, lost the gubernatorial primary by less than a percentage point in the race. The article suggests this loss may be related to legal issues Drummond faced concerning his prior actions. Specifically, Drummond argued that his state's charter school program was unconstitutional, leading to litigation before the Supreme Court, where the case was affirmed by an equally divided court. Furthermore, Drummond engaged in actions regarding the capital conviction of Richard Glossip, hiring a friend to review it and asking the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate the death sentence, which the court refused to revisit. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had misinterpreted federal law in that case. The text also notes that Drummond seemed to support Justice Gorsuch's decision in McGirt, a decision that correlated with electoral maps suggesting opposition from Indian country voters.

Full Take

The narrative constructs a persuasive link between specific legal actions taken by the Attorney General and an electoral outcome, suggesting that judicial maneuvering directly influenced political positioning. The underlying pattern involves leveraging high-stakes litigation—both in educational law and criminal appeals—to shape public perception or demonstrate ideological alignment, irrespective of the direct legal outcomes. The references to being "contrarian" and "libertarian" establish a framing where legal challenges are positioned as inherently political acts rather than purely legal disputes. This suggests a pattern of using judicial processes as tools for political self-fashioning. A significant implication is how procedural actions, even those resulting in narrow court decisions or dissenting opinions, can be selectively deployed to create a political narrative that influences voter sentiment. The structure implicitly asks whether the pursuit of perceived legal correctness supersedes the importance of presenting a coherent public political stance. What assumptions underpin the belief that these prior judicial positions are directly relevant to current electoral results? How does the framing position legal advocacy as an inherently partisan act? What is the responsibility of observers when legal processes become embedded in political contests?

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

The text reads as a highly opinionated, firsthand political commentary rooted in specific legal history, exhibiting a distinct human voice rather than machine neutrality.

Signals Detected

Erratic sentence length and highly personal, informal voice ('I'd like to think,' 'deserves some heat') interspersed with formal legal reference.

Strong idiosyncratic emphasis focused on moral/political judgment rather than pure reporting; the flow is conversational yet tightly structured around specific events.

Direct, personal commentary woven directly into the factual summary; no generic attribution found.

References to specific legal cases (St. Isidore, Glossip, McGirt) and judicial dissent points suggest deep contextual knowledge, though the narrative framing is highly opinionated.

Human Indicators

The presence of a distinct, strong, and highly subjective personal voice ('I usually do not comment,' 'I'd like to think') is a strong indicator against pure synthetic generation.

The blending of high-level legal analysis with political commentary feels characteristic of an experienced commentator rather than an LLM synthesizing facts.