Ohio Right to Life Opposes Judicial Reform
Submitted by Bradley L. Cromes on Tue, 12/15/2009 - 2:24pm.
Ohio Right to Life likes Ohio’s judicial election process just fine, thank you very much.
In a press release issued from the organization today, the ultra conservative group expressed its opposition to efforts to change an elective system which has produced a 7-0 Republican majority on Ohio’s high court.
Given bad press from no less than The Grey Lady, Chief Justice Moyer wants to ride off into the sunset next year by fixing the system that created that majority. Right to Life, apparently, blames him for tryin’.
Their main quibble with the proposal currently on the table, which would select judges on a merit basis rather than electioneering prowess, is that it would give the Governor too much latitude to select justices and would cut Ohio voters out of the process.
The problem for the Right to Lifers? The system as proposed would create a panel of experts (serving on a non-partisan basis) who would recommend judges for the high court. The Governor’s office would have no veto power under the plan, and would effectively serve as a rubber stamp for the panel’s recommendations.
The voters wouldn’t be cut out of the process, either. As their own letter notes, voters would have a chance to vote judges out of office in a retention election if their service is substandard. The veto here belongs to the voters.
What the Right to Lifers really mean to say is that 1) they’re upset that they can’t spend willy nilly to support arch conservative judges under this system, 2) reform scares them because it promotes balance.
They argue that merit selection encourages judges to make policy from the bench and act unilaterally…which I suppose to them doesn’t include the bench rewrites of Ohio election law and expansion of corporate protection the current (conservative) Ohio Supreme Court has done in recent years.
Would this opposition really be coming if, say, the Governor’s name was Blackwell and not Strickland? One wonders.
Perhaps the Right to Lifers should leave judicial policy and selection processes to those with some expertise, and stick to finding a way to make opposition to abortion and support of the death penalty play together in that “culture of life” they’re so fond of.
Judges Are Too Important To Be Selected By A Back Room Committee
Tom Moyer, a good Justice, tragically has presided over the wholesale transformation of the judiciary into a spectacle of justice for sale for his whole judicial career. Ever since he bought his way past Frank Celebrezze for Chief Justice, money has become the measure by which judicial candidates are judged, and now, in the twilight of his career, the Chief wants to "change" the system. To What? So-called Merit Selection. Nonsense. The people of Ohio have repeatedly said they do not want that system. Why? Consider what Judges do. We decide who goes to jail and who goes free. We decide who gets your fortune after your death; who will be permitted to raise their own children and who will not; and ultimately who decides what the Constitution means in any particular situation. No, the people of Ohio WILL NEVER AGREE to let their voice in the SELECTION OF JUDGES be silenced. Merit selection will just move the political process off Main Street and put it in the board rooms. Never. Bill Oneill, former Democratic Nominee, Supreme Court of Ohio.
What "back room"?
Judge O'Neill, I have nothing but respect for your usually well-reasoned statements here and in other forums, but your opposition to this reform package perplexes me.
While you lambaste Moyer for creating a "spectacle of justice for sale," you seem to be unwilling or unable to allow him to correct that transgression by championing reform in his judicial twilight. I can understand skepticism that reform will happen in that light, but I don't understand why you won't even consider the proposals out there on their merits.
Let's look at what electing judges has gotten us: a 7-0 conservative majority, status as the nation's #1 per capita spender on judicial elections, and a belief in 80% of the general public (and a majority of judges) that campaign contributions impact outcomes in the courtroom. Like it or not, Bill, the elective model for picking judges in Ohio has failed.
What's more, your argument that merit selection removes voters from the process is, to put it kindly, shaky. Yes, it's true that voters would not initially put a judge on the bench. That said, though, voters would have an up or down voice on whether that judge should be re-seated. So, if a judge chosen by panel turns out to be a "string 'em up" hangin' judge or one who doesn't respect property rights, he can get the heave-ho.
The accountability measure is still there.
What's more, picking judges by a panel of non-partisan experts works. Other states who've made this move see consistent grades for judges from attorneys and litigants in the "B+" to "A" range (Arizona is a good example). As those are the folks who interact with judges, it's their opinions that really matter.
Injecting partisanship and money from interest groups into judicial selection CANNOT serve the interest of justice. Ever.
That's what we've got right now, and though I still need to hear more on certain aspects of the reform proposal (including how they keep interest group cash out of the election to re-appoint judges), I think they're on the right track to giving Ohioans a more just justice system.
Justice and balance, to me, seem like pretty good aims for a judicial system. Justice Moyer, whatever his past sins, seems to get that now, and I think we need to applaud that.
Maybe it's time to move beyond our personal histories and viewpoints in the interest of creating a better system for all Ohioans.
Take The Money Out and The System will Right Itself
The solution is so simple it will never arrive. Take the obscene money out of the system and preserve the voters right to select their judiciary. For the past twenty years big business and insurance industries have been spending MILLIONS PER YEAR to buy seats on the Ohio Supreme Court. The argument that money equates to free speech is bologna. If that were true then why did I have to sue the Supreme Court to tell the voters I am a Democrat? Why are there individual limits on contributions? Why can't the Chamber of Commerce simply write a huge check and avoid the charade? What, are we only in favor of some free speech? Easy fix. Charge a $10 "JUDICIAL SELECTION FEE" on to every lawsuit filed in Ohio...there are Millions per year. And then use that money...approximately $20 million annually, to fund sources such as "Judge For Yourself" to educate voters on real qualifications. I stress real. We could even give candidates for the office say $100,000 to present their case locally, or a $ Million statewide. In return, we could PROHIBIT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BE A JUDGE from taking a dime from anyone. Here's the question I always raised on the campaign trail. If, God forbid, you have to go to court, do you really want your case to be decided by a Judge who took a $100 contribution at a cocktail party from your opponent's lawyer? All politics is local. And staewide races are no different. Of course, I might add, other than blogs, my ideas will never see the light of day, because Moyer and his ideas are being "discussed" by people who simply listen and follow. Listen and Follow. Listen and follow. Twenty years worth. Bill O'Neill
Not a bad idea...
But I think your instinct that it'll never happen is right.
In lieu of that kind of reform, then, I think the proposal on the table's pretty good. Reasonable minds can differ, though.