Bail reform amendment should raise questions for voters

Ohioans will see two proposed state constitutional amendments on November’s ballot, one of which drew some Democratic legislators’ votes, while the other is a Republican turnout special.

The first proposed amendment would forbid non-citizens to vote in local elections. As it is, non-citizens may not vote in federal or state elections. But a while back, voters in Yellow Springs, amended their village’s charter to allow it. Legal route to that result: The state constitution’s home-rule guarantees to cities and villages.

Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose nixed it. Besides, the Legislative Service Commission reports, “It seems that no non-citizen has registered to vote in the village.”

Ah, but there’s no greater Statehouse pleasure than pounding a non-existent problem with a sledgehammer.

The other November ballot issue, submitted along party lines — Republican legislators for, Democrats against — would, the LSC says, require courts, when setting bail for criminal defendants, to consider public safety among the pertinent factors.

There are three strands to the backstory. One, if voters OK it, the ballot issue would chip away at the state Supreme Court’s rule-making power over how courts operate as to setting bail.

Another strand is a 4-3 decision the Supreme Court issued in January. That ruling agreed with a lower court that bail for a Cincinnati defendant charged with homicide should be reduced from $1.5 million to $500,000.

The justices upholding the $500,000 amount were retiring Republican Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, and Democratic Justices Melody Stewart, Jennifer Brunner and Michael Donnelly. The three opposing the reduction were Republicans Sharon Kennedy, Patrick Fischer and R. Patrick DeWine, Gov. Mike DeWine’s son.

A third strand: Brunner and Kennedy are running against each other to be the next chief justice.

And seeking re-election are DeWine (challenged by Democratic 1st

District Court of Appeals Judge Marilyn Zayas of Cincinnati) and Fischer (challenged by Democratic 10th District Court of Appeals Judge Terri Jamison of Columbus).

Continued GOP control of the court is a critical goal of the Statehouse’s GOP hierarchy, given that General Assembly districts must be redrawn for 2024’s election.

It might or might not be Hoyle for Kennedy to criticize Brunner over the bail case, or for DeWine and Fischer to criticize the other Democrats in the majority. Still, in his dissent, Justice DeWine described the bail ruling this way: “Make no mistake: what the majority does today will make Ohio communities less safe.”

If that doesn’t invite Ohio voters and bystanders to ask the three Ohio Supreme Court Republican candidates on November’s ballot about the bail amendment, and its law ‘n’ order angle, and who voted how, then nothing can. After all, discussing “the-administration-of-justice” — not the nuts-and-bolts of wooing voters — is so much more … judicial.