For the past couple of weeks, Gov. Kevin Stitt and Attorney General Gentner Drummond have waged a battle of rhetoric.

The governor has complained that Drummond “weaponized” the AG’s office after he issued an opinion that Stitt saw as an attack on his ability to choose who he wants to serve on his Cabinet. Drummond countered the governor doesn’t understand the issue and that he is only enforcing existing law.

While the debate has continued, Stitt lost two Cabinet secretaries, vetoed a bill that would have protected two more and filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma County District Court for “clarification.”

So what, exactly, going on?

From the 30,000-foot level, the answer is simple: The governor is pushing back against limits on his power while the AG looks to his political future and Cleveland County residents and their state senator were unhappy with a turnpike plan.

What’s behind the debate between the governor and the attorney general?

A few years back, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, state lawmakers granted the governor extraordinary authority that previous Oklahoma governors didn’t have. Keep in mind the Oklahoma Constitution is, at its heart, a populist document that makes the 149-member Legislature the most powerful branch of state government.

During the pandemic, some of that power was shifted to Stitt. However, as concern over the pandemic faded, lawmakers took some of that power back.

At the same time, a controversy involving a turnpike expansion plan exploded. With Drummond watching from the sidelines — and planning his political future — Sen. Mary Boren, a Democrat from Norman, raised questions about the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority’s ACCESS plan on behalf of her constituents.

More: War of words: Stitt and Drummond at odds over state officials holding dual positions

The turnpike authority played political hardball so Boren availed herself to a rule that allows lawmakers to request opinions from the attorney general. Boren requested an opinion from Drummond about Tim Gatz’s role as the head of the turnpike authority, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and a member of the governor’s Cabinet.

Remember: In Oklahoma, the law states that public officials are required to act in accordance with an attorney general’s opinion unless or until the opinion is set aside by a court. In addition, AG opinions that address the constitutionality of a statute are considered advisory. So Drummond’s official opinion could have punch.

It did.

During a news conference, Stitt attempted to question Boren’s reasoning for seeking an attorney general’s opinion, implying that Boren was attacking Gatz, now at ground zero of the controversy. The governor’s question also criticized Boren’s vote against confirming Gatz: “The only person that voted against him was a lady named Mary Boren and apparently, she supposedly requested this opinion, so maybe she has an ax to grind, I don’t know,” the governor said.

What the governor didn’t say, though, was Boren was well within her rights as a state lawmaker to request an AG’s opinion. Members of the Legislature regularly request opinions from the AG’s office. In addition, Boren has, for more than a year, raised questions about the ACCESS Oklahoma turnpike expansion plan and its effect on residents in her district. The issue wasn’t necessarily an ax to grind, it was a lawmaker responding to her constituents.

Still, if the objective was to remove Gatz as head of the turnpike authority, that goal was successful. Gatz stepped down from that post but remains as the head of the Transportation Department and as an adviser to the governor.

Opinions, rhetoric and ‘unnecessary’ legislation

With the attorney general and the governor now deep in a war of words, state lawmakers attempted to solve the problem by passing Senate Bill 1196, which would have carved out two more exemptions for members of the governor’s Cabinet. That measure, which carried House Majority Leader Jon Echols’ name, passed both the House and Senate by large margins this week.

But the governor vetoed the bill late Tuesday, issuing a media statement that called the measure “unnecessary.”

And, to be fair, the governor may have a point. All governors seek advice. And each governor should have wide latitude in who he or she can get that advice from. Since Oklahoma law allows the governor to name Cabinet secretaries — which can be paid or unpaid advisers — Stitt has the authority to name who he wants to his Cabinet, with the “advice and consent” of the state Senate. The salaries for those advisers are part of the governor’s budget.

Stitt is also correct in pointing out that other Oklahoma governors have had Cabinet secretaries who also headed state agencies. During the term of then-Gov. Henry Bellmon, Sandy Garrett, who also held the elected post of state schools superintendent, was Bellmon’s Cabinet secretary for education. Garrett was a Democrat; Bellmon was a Republican.

Still, while Stitt has some valid arguments, so does Drummond. The attorney general focused on the statute that limits dual service, particularly with Gatz, who served not only in the governor’s Cabinet but also as head of both the Transportation Department and the turnpike authority. Since there wasn’t a specific exemption for Gatz, Drummond’s opinion stood and Gatz was forced to resign.

So what happens next?

For his part, the governor has turned to Oklahoma County District Court, asking the court to “clarify” his appointment authority. Drummond, a skilled attorney, replied that he looks forward to making his case in court.

In the meantime, lawmakers could attempt to override the governor’s veto of SB 1196 (remember it passed by large margins in both houses), but it’s also March, and the Legislature’s priority isn’t a fight between the governor and the attorney general. The Legislature’s priority is to craft a budget and get it done before the May 31 deadline.

As for Stitt and Drummond, it looks like their fight won’t be decided by media statements but could, instead, be decided by District Court Judge Richard Ogden — at least for now.