Ohio Chief Justice Runs up the White Flag on “Merit” Selection
October 31, 2011
Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor apparently has concluded “merit” selection is a lost cause. In a Cleveland Plain Dealer article, by columnist Brent Larkin, O’Connor “believes, probably correctly, that voters would never approve such an idea. Indeed, twice in the past – 1938 and 1987 – Ohioans overwhelmingly rejected merit selection ballot issues.” Instead, she’ll be busying herself with small-ball reforms – like raising salaries for Ohio judges and a ballot initiative that would increase the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75. In today’s world, where so many reform-minded judges are constantly seeking to grasp more power and further insulate themselves from the citizens they serve, I guess this counts as a victory.
“Merit” Selection Proponents Don’t Let Facts Get in the Way
June 27, 2011
Judge Jack Zouhary offers a lame rebuttal to a recent article by University of Pittsburgh Professor Chris Bonneau, who marshaled real empirical evidence, including analysis of court opinion and campaign spending patterns, to demonstrate that democratic judicial elections are not a threat to democracy. Judge Zouhary responds with … a couple public opinion polls dating back to 2001.
As an undoubtedly distinguished jurist, Judge Zouhary must be unaware that many of the polls he cites were paid for by George Soros’ $45 million campaign to fundamentally change our courts and promote “merit” selection. He also must have missed a recent Rasmussen poll that found that 65 percent of Americans think judges should be elected. Or a 2008 American Justice Partnership poll which found that only 21 percent of Americans favored “merit” selection for state judges, compared to 75 percent who favored elections. (Full disclosure: I run the AJP.)
Yet in Judge Zouhary’s mind, the evidence doesn’t really matter. As he candidly put it, “Public perception that justice is ‘for sale’ is damaging to the courts – whatever the reality.” (my emphasis) In other words, the facts are meaningless – it’s only the perception that counts.
The judge’s little obiter dicta gives away the entire “merit” selection strategy. A lavishly-funded group like Justice at Stake swoops into a state and makes a lot of noise about the “danger” of campaign money judicial elections. They roll in an eminence grise like Sandra Day O’Connor to decry the “threat” to judicial independence. They visit local editorial boards, which dutifully parrot the party line. Then, after this carefully orchestrated campaign, they take a poll that shows – low and behold – people are suddenly, magically concerned about the judiciary. The only answer? Take away the peoples’ right to vote and let legal elites pick judges!
It’s all very neat and tidy: spend millions to create a perception problem and then offer up a “solution” that just coincidentally pushes courts in your preferred ideological direction. The problem is, voters don’t really buy the argument that they’re the problem. That’s why they keep pushing back against “merit” selection in states like Tennessee, Missouri and Arizona, defeating “merit” selection ballot initiatives in states like Nevada, and demanding that judges be held accountable in states like Iowa.
Democratic Judicial Elections Work in Ohio
July 26, 2010
Our friends at Gavel Grab have a little post lauding several Ohio judicial candidates for agreeing to abide by Marquess of Queensberry rules in the upcoming election. Chief Justice Eric Brown, Justice Maureen O’Connor, Justice Judith Lanzinger and appellate Judge Mary Jane Trapp all signed a “clean-campaign pledge,” promising to focus their campaigns on experience and credentials. Candidates are also supposed to disavow any ads from outside groups that “impugn the integrity” of an opponent.
Of course, the greatest guarantors of “clean” judges are the people themselves – who can easily vote down any judicial candidate they feel is too negative or too beholden to special interest groups. Makes you wonder why the Gavel Grabbers are so afraid of democracy when it comes to picking judges.
ACORN’s Candidate in Ohio
March 26, 2010
While ACORN has imploded amidst allegations of fraud and corruption, its allies continue to hold powerful posts – including Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who is in a neck-and-neck race with Rob Portman to fill the U.S. Senate seat of retiring George Voinovich.
Brunner came to office with the help of the Secretary of State Project (SOS Project) – another campaign group bankrolled by hedge fund billionaire George Soros. Secretaries of State typically serve as the state’s chief election official, putting them in prime position to tip close elections toward ultra-liberal allies of the SOS Project. Exhibit A: Minnesota, where Secretary of State Mark Ritchie was elected with SOS Project $$ and went on to block an investigation of ACORN’s registration of dead voters and convicted felons. Ritchie also played a crucial role in Al Franken’s tainted Senate victory.
An American Spectator article raises interesting questions about some funny business involving Brunner and a prospective Tea Party candidate for Ohio Attorney General.
Ohio Judicial Elections: Common Sense From Ohio’s Bench
March 3, 2010
Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer’s campaign to abolish democratic judicial elections has run into strong opposition from his colleagues on the state Supreme Court. In a Columbus Dispatch article, Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton said judicial elections are “open and transparent” and made the common sense observation that:
“… people are smart enough and there’s enough information out there for them to make those judgments about who should serve on the court.”
Justice Maureen O’Connor seconded the motion:
“No method for judicial selection is ideal and without problems. I believe that we should work with the elective system and concentrate on educating the public about the qualifications, records and philosophies of each candidate. The public can then decide who deserves their vote, trust and confidence.”
Justice Paul Pfeifer added that “merit” selection “is going nowhere” in Ohio.
In an era where judges routinely look down on the people they serve (see my post on Judge H. Lee Sarokin), it’s refreshing to hear from judges who understand that in a democracy the people are sovereign.
Update on Ohio Judicial Elections
January 19, 2010
The Marietta Times (Ohio) ran an article yesterday on the ongoing debate in Ohio over whether to preserve state judicial elections. Thomas Moyer, Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, has been leading the charge to scrap Ohio’s elections in favor of “merit” selection. Moyer has promoted his effort nationally, allying with former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and speaking at events around the country.
Back home in Ohio, folks are hardly chomping at the bit to put judicial selection in the hands of legal elites, at least according to the Marietta Times article. In it, the Washington County public defender, the Marietta City Law Director and a sitting county judge all say they’d prefer to let the people decide.
Money quote:
“I’m 100 percent for people retaining their right to elect their officials” — Washington County Common Pleas Judge Ed Lane.
Stay tuned.
No Merit In Ohio
November 23, 2009
According to the Columbus Dispatch, a small group of legal elites – including the Chief Justice of Ohio’s Supreme Court and the president of the Ohio Bar – got together last week to discuss the best way to select judges in Ohio. Guess what? They think legal elites should have more control – people like themselves, in fact.
When asked, 78 percent said they would support a ballot provision abolishing democratic judicial elections and replacing them with “merit” selection – where elites pick judges and voters are shut out of the process. Sounds impressive – until you hear there were only about 50 people in the room.
Nevertheless, this pseudo-scientific “poll” perfectly captures the condescending mindset behind the “merit” selection crowd. Fifty elites gather at a swanky hotel and inform roughly 8.2 million Ohio voters that their participation in deciding who will control one-third of their state government is no longer needed.
Worth Reading: Blackwell On Voter Registration
October 5, 2009
Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has a good piece in today’s Washington Times on how to reform our voter registration process and keep corrupt organizations like ACORN at arms length. Money quote:
“By using technology to make voter registration more automated, we can save money and get rid of those groups that thrive by gaming the voter registration system.”
Show Me The Rulings
September 30, 2008
Ohio Judge Joseph Russo is concerned about the public perception that by contributing to judicial candidates someone can “buy a vote on the court.” In fact, Judge Russo thinks this mere perception is “just as bad” as a judge actually acting corruptly by shifting a decision to reward campaign contributors.
Things are so bad in Ohio that, in a 2002 survey, 83% of Ohio voters believed that cash influences judicial decisions. With this perception so widespread, Ohio courts must be rife with corruption and dozens of Ohio judges must have been impeached for their misconduct. Can someone show me these rulings?
Or maybe there’s another explanation. Maybe this perception just reflects the low regard voters have for all public officials – from presidents on down to state judges. Maybe that’s why a more recent public opinion survey by the American Justice Partnership Foundation found that 75% of voters believe judges should be elected by the people and two out of three said elections were an effective way to hold judges accountable.
McCain Calls for Appointment of “Independent, Nonpartisan” Panel of Military Vets to Decide Presidency…Obama Counters That Committee of Community Organizers Should Pick Next President Based On “Merit, Not Politics”…
September 15, 2008
Can anyone imagine a more flagrant violation of democratic principles than candidates for public office insisting that a tiny panel controlled by their favored special interest ought to make the final decision over which candidate is selected? Any attempt by John McCain or Barack Obama to sidestep voters would be met with howls of equal parts laughter and indignation – and they’d be booted off their respective tickets as quickly as a new convention could be called.
But when a state judge proposes that a secret committee of high-powered lawyers ought to decide who controls one-third of our state government, everyone jumps to attention. Editorial board members thoughtfully stroke their chins and opine on the need to take “politics” out of judicial races. Legal elites solemnly nod their heads and lecture us, saying judges should be chosen according to “merit” – as opposed to the standard that ordinary voters use. Supposedly nonpartisan good government groups praise the proposal as a way to keep judges “independent” – presumably from the people they are supposed to serve.
The latest manifestation of this trend comes to us via the BuckeyeBlog, which reports that Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer wants to revoke the Constitutional right of Ohioans to vote for state judges and adopt a “merit” selection process where a committee of lawyers does the picking. BuckeyeBlog had it right four years ago, when Moyer first floated this plan:
It is not the process of selecting judges that will preserve the independence of the judiciary. It is the character of the men and women who serve on our courts that will determine the future of Ohio’s court system. They must resist the temptation to act as omnipotent policymakers and remember their role is one of interpreting the law, not making it up from the bench.
BuckeyeBlog is right, of course, but this won’t stop more state judges from proposing with a straight face to end democratic elections and let lawyers choose based on their own definition of “merit.” I guess they believe “merit” is a necessary consideration in choosing who will wear the black robes in Jefferson City and Topeka, but not in determining who will occupy the Oval Office.