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.
Will Legal Reform Suvive In Ohio?
August 22, 2008
David Owsiany at the Buckeye Institute Blog has an interesting post on efforts by the trial bar to rollback key provisions of recently enacted reform legislation. A recent 5-2 decision by the Ohio Supreme Court upheld reasonable limits on runaway pain and suffering awards. But two of the justices in the majority are up for re-election this fall – and they’re sure to be targeted by the powerful trial lawyers lobby.
Ohio is one of several states in the Midwest suffering from a slowing economy and loss of manufacturing jobs. Legal reform – which ensures a fair and balanced court system which is not controlled by trial lawyers – helps make Ohio a more attractive place for businesses to invest and create new jobs.
The people of Ohio have a choice to make this fall: Do they want judges who interpret the law and uphold legislative reforms? Or do they want judges who will legislate from the bench by overturning reforms that are critical to Ohio’s economic future?
Keeping Voters Informed In Ohio
August 19, 2008
The Cleveland Plain Dealer came out with a strong editorial supporting judicial elections and a campaign rule that would let judicial candidates list their party affiliations in campaign ads – a move the paper called “a big plus for free speech, common sense and Ohio voters.”
Gaining Ground In Ohio
August 8, 2008
For many years, Ohio was mired in one of the worst legal liability climates in the nation—rated as low as 43rd among the states. Business and jobs fled the state. During much of this decade, while the rest of the United States enjoyed robust growth and low unemployment, Ohioans felt as if they were living in an endless recession.
In an op-ed this week, Ohio State Sen. John Carey describes how legislators in Columbus finally reacted, passing measures in 2005 to lure business back into the Buckeye state. Among them were tort reform measures that moved Ohio’s legal liability climate from that 43rd place to 4th best in the nation, as rated by the venerable Pacific Research Institute in its latest report. “By reducing frivolous lawsuits,” Sen. Carey writes, “we can make Ohio a more attractive place to do business.”
And how. In 2005, there was $3.8 billion in new private investment projects planned in Ohio. Today $7 billion in new investment is planned.
Justice At Stake Takes Its Campaign To Ohio
May 5, 2008
Justice at Stake – the group bankrolled by billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros – has taken its campaign to elbow voters out of judicial elections to Ohio.