Justice calls for eliminating party from judicial ballots
Ohio Chief Justice COLUMBUS — Maureen O’Connor wants the Rs and Ds removed from judicial candidates’ names on ballots, arguing that judges have to rule on the specifics of the cases in front of them, and not the values of the Republican, Democratic or other political parties.
O’Connor, a Republican who ran unopposed in 2016, told the cleveland.com/Plain Dealer editorial board in a video conferencing meeting Wednesday that there are better ways to judge candidates, such as their records on the bench and their explanation of why they want to move onto a higher bench, such as the Ohio Supreme Court or an appellate court. Judges can explain complicated cases that they were careful about deciding, and educate voters on the potential consequences if they would have been less thorough with the details.
In Ohio, judicial candidates can be nominated by political parties and compete for nominations in primaries. But in general elections, there
are no party designations on the ballot. It’s the only state with such a system.
O’Connor said in 2012, she joined a dissenting opinion over legislative redistricting. The majority opinion largely favored Republicans, and she got some criticism from members in her party for not joining the majority.
“I broke away from the mold in some people’s minds,” she said. “And so again, party affiliation should not — and people have to understand it should not — have anything to do with how a judge does their job,” she said.
O’Connor has fought the
perception that the judiciary is partisan. In September, the Ohio GOP, on Twitter and in a statement, criticized a Columbus judge for a ruling. O’Connor shot back: “Every one of Ohio’s 722 judges, 800 magistrates, and numerous active-retired judges should be greatly concerned and voice their dismay at the irresponsible Republican Party allegation that politics controlled the judge’s decision. This is a blatant and unfounded attack on the independence of the Ohio judiciary.”
Removing party affiliation on primary ballots, which O’Connor first proposed in 2013 and mentioned in a revised and shortened 2014 document, would require amending the Ohio Constitution.
“I have a bully pulpit, but it only goes so far,” she said. “And I have to work with the legislature on something like this. And it’s constitutional changes so you’d have to convince the public.”
It’s also unclear whether political parties would stop funding and endorsing their candidates, even if their affiliation isn’t on the primary ballot.
O’Connor said that she’s concerned about the increasing levels of independent funding involved in judicial races. Groups can spend unlimited amounts of money for or against candidates as long as they’re not coordinating with candidate campaigns under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. Contributors to the third party groups often cannot be traced.
“I’d love to see Citizens United overturned, so we don’t have that status that is bestowed on these political action groups,” she said.