'The Law Is Already Clear' Gov. Stitt Vetoes Bills Allowing Agency Directors To Serve Cabinet Positions

Gov. Kevin Stitt issues his first veto of the legislative session on Tuesday.

Senate Bill 1196 would have allowed exemptions for two agency directors to serve on Stitt's cabinet simultaneously. Specifically, the executive director of the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture and a member of a governing body of higher education.

Stitt says "The law is *already clear. The Governor can choose his cabinet from among the agency directors."

The bill came after an opinion by the Attorney General last month that said dual-office-holding is unconstitutional.

Related Story: Stitt Seeks Clarity On Oklahoma Law With Cabinet Members’ Lawsuit Against Drummond

Stitt filed a lawsuit to challenge that opinion last week. Drummond said the governor's veto "makes clear that he is more interested in pursuing needless litigation than working with policymakers to solve the problem.”

Gov. Stitt's Full Statement on SB 1196:

“This legislation is unnecessary because the law is already clear: The Governor can choose his cabinet from among the agency directors. It was clear in 2019 when I hired Blayne Arthur as Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and it was clear in 2019 and again in 2023 when I chose her as my Secretary of Agriculture,” said Gov. Stitt. “She is one of the most respected Agriculture professionals in the nation and we are lucky to have her here in Oklahoma. Not only that, but she has been unanimously confirmed by the Senate three times. Without question, she will continue to operate as my Secretary of Agriculture and as the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture. I want the best people leading agencies and advising me on policy as we work to be a Top Ten state.”

Attorney General Drummond's Response:

“I applaud the Legislature for its efforts to provide dual-office exemptions to Secretaries Arthur and Winchester, which is the only appropriate way for one person to legally hold multiple offices,” Drummond said. “The Governor could have approved these exemptions and allowed his appointees to continue serving without any uncertainty regarding their proper status. However, his veto makes clear that he is more interested in pursuing needless litigation than working with policymakers to solve the problem.”