Adding party labels to ballots must begin somewhere for transparency
In a recent letter, Justice Melody Stewart takes issue with my support for legislation that would add party affiliation to ballot names for the Supreme Court and courts of appeals.
The legislation makes sense. Our constitution mandates the selection of judges in partisan primaries. As long as that is the case, there is little value in hiding the party nomination from voters. Our judicial selection system is premised on the idea that voters have the ultimate say; we do not further that aim by deliberately keeping information from them.
A party label does not dictate how a judge will decide a particular case. As judges, our role is to apply the law as it is written, regardless of our personal preferences and sympathies. But research shows it might provide some indication about judicial philosophy.
Justice Stewart criticizes the legislation because it applies only to our highest courts. No doubt, the rationales for adding party labels apply also to the trial level. Arguably, it makes sense to start with the highest courts because voters are less likely to have first-hand contact with, and thus know the least, about these judges. In addition, judicial philosophy plays a greater role in decision-making in the supreme and appellate courts than at the trial level.
Justice Stewart says because the reform doesn’t reach every Ohio judge, it “makes no sense to (her) whatsoever.” To me, it makes perfect sense. Incremental reform seems far superior to no reform at all.
Justice Pat Dewine