Douglas L. Combs
Non-Partisan | Oklahoma
Candidate Profile
Activist
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Douglas L. Combs
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2022
Election
General
Race
Supreme Court (retention)
Incumbent
Yes
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
OTHER INFORMATION
Justice Douglas Combs (D) was appointed by Governor Brad Henry (D) in 2010. Prior he served as Assistant State Attorney General to Larry Derryberry (D).
Notable Cases:
Greenwood Centra, ltd. v. Nightingale (2020) Concurred in the majority that the petitioner was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. Petitioner asked the court to prevent President Trump’s campaign rally from being hosted in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Court majority wrote, “for a lack of any mandatory language in the OURS [Open Up and Recover Safely] Plan, we are compelled to deny the relief requested.” Justice Rowe added, “It is not the duty of this Court to fashion rules or regulations where none exist, simply to achieve a desired outcome.”
Treat v. Stitt (2020) Concurred in majority. The governor does not have the authority to enter into the gaming compact that bound the State, thus declaratory relief was granted. The state legislature after vote of the people enacted the State-Tribal Gaming Act which allows the governor to make such an agreement but he or she is bound by the terms of the Act. The terms specifically prohibited the type of gaming included in the compact; thus, the court found the governor acted outside his authority and the compact is invalid. Notes: good conclusion finding the governor overstepped his authority; however court does not include language from gaming act or relevant statutes.
In re: State Question No. 807, Initiative Petition No. 423 (2020). The Court majority wrote, “The petition [Initiative Petition No. 423] seeks to create a new article to the Oklahoma Constitution, Article 31, for the purpose of legalizing, regulating, and taxing the use of marijuana by Oklahoma adults…we hold Petitioner has not met his burden to show clear or manifest facial constitutional infirmities because he has not shown State Question No. 807 is preempted by federal law. On the grounds alleged, the petition is legally sufficient for submission to the people of Oklahoma.” Justice Rowe responded, “SQ 807’s proposed constitutional amendments clearly present a substantial obstacle to Congress's objectives expressed in the CSA to control the production, sale, and use of controlled substances. Therefore, SQ 807 is preempted by federal law.”
Nova Health Systems v. Pruitt (2012) Signed per curiam majority opinion. Held that a law requiring that an ultrasound be performed prior to an abortion violated Planned Parenthood v Casey (para. 3). Noted that the OK Supreme Court is bound by the Supreme Court's decisions (para. 2). Concerning elements: the court did not explain its reasoning aside from citing Casey. Fedsoc article says that the Fifth Circuit (no jurisdiction over OK) found a more restrictive TX law to be constitutional.
Hunsucker v. Fallin (2017) Signed Justice Edmondson's majority opinion. Held that defense attorneys challenging a law changing DUI penalties had standing because of "public interest" in the law and that the law was unconstitutional for violating the one-subject rule (para. 38). Held that the issue was public interest because of the "negative consequences attendant to enforcing alleged unconstitutional provisions statewide which relate to both criminal and civil adjective and substantive law involving operating a motor vehicle" (para. 7). Held that granting declaratory relief in this case was akin to "both the historic prerogative writ of mandamus and the bill in equity for an injunction which tested the legality of public officials' conduct" (para. 7). Held that two respondent legislators were immune as public officials (para. 10-12). Held that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the one-subject rule (para. 21-37). Winchester dissent argued the majority holding on standing is inconsistent with the traditional rule for standing and is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court Precedent. Concluded that "the plaintiffs, as third parties to the claimed constitutional violations of the proposed S.B. 643, have suffered no actual, present injury and it is unknown how, if at all, their income would be affected by the implementation of the proposed statutes. Enlarging public interest standing to allow attorneys to challenge a proposed law's possible application to a potential, future client flies in the face of U. S. Supreme Court case law, as well as our own, requiring strict adherence to the justiciability of a case"
Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Cline (2019) Signed separate concurrence writing “reemphasize my writing in Oklahoma Coalition For Reproductive Justice v. Cline, wherein I noted this Court's prior disapproval of a law's drastic interference in the role of physicians which restricted the use of abortion-inducing drugs to the regime in the final printed labeling as being 'so completely at odds with the standard that governs the practice of medicine that it can serve no purpose other than to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to punish and discriminate against those who do.'” Majority held that SB 2684 was unconstitutional because it impose an undue burden on a womens ability to access abortion. The court granted the motion for summary judgment holding it was bound by Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The test applied was “whether the statute has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice and imposing an undue burden on the rights which is the issue here.” The legislation “outlawed ‘off-label’ use of a specific abortion drug. The court held that requiring the 2000’s protocol creates a undue burden because most doctors don’t follow it, there are more adverse effects, and the 2016 protocol is “evidence-based.” “ Held that The United States Supreme Court has been clear that ‘u]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on that right.’ . Hellerstedt requires the court to look to “expert evidence, presented in stipulations, depositions and testimony.” Findings showed the safest use of such drugs follows the FDA protocol. FDA protocol is consistent with 2016 protocol not 2000 .
Judge Voter Guide rated Justice Combs 2/5 stars and voted not to retain him.
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Did not answer
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Did not answer
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
Did not answer
Why should the voters choose you?
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Did not answer
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
Did not answer
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
Did not answer
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
Did not answer
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Did not answer
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Did not answer
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
Did not answer
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
Did not answer
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
Did not answer
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
Did not answer
