The Taste at the Fraze
Alter vs. Tippecanoe
Strickland, Brown rally
Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2010 > July > 28 > Entry
Ohio Dems, union challenge “free speech” restrictions in judicial elections
Ohio Democrats and a major public employees’ union on Wednesday, July 28, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging restrictions that bar judicial candidates in general elections from disclosing their party identifications and soliciting funds.
“There is no reason for judicial candidates to be forced to withhold their party affiliation from the electorate,” Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern said in a press release. “Ohio voters have a right to know the political party that a judicial candidate is affiliated with. The more information voters have, the better.”
The Ohio Democratic Party, Ohio Council 8 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and three judicial candidates filed the lawsuit in U.S.
Rules barring judicial candidates from disclosing their party affiliations and soliciting funds were recently overturned with regard to Kentucky judicial candidates by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, the press release said.
In Ohio, judicial candidates are nominated in partisan primaries but appear on general election ballots without party identification.
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment |
Comments
By J.C.
August 3, 2010 5:55 PM | Link to this
Unions need to figure out they are a small percentage of the work force. While they do spend a lot on money supporting the candidates they feel are union supporters, they usual get shafted in the end. Wake up unions, put the money in your pockets and not theirs.
By Dot
August 1, 2010 11:01 AM | Link to this
Papagino, You must have made your comment before doing some research. I am a 20 year plus active union member, and a registered democrat. I research every issue and candidate before Election Day. My family actually has dinner time discussions over the current election issues and candidates, and then we each choose individually how we are going to vote. In this great nation I do not have to select by the D or R. I have selected candidates from both. By having this, it simply gives you more information. Tell me why judicial candidates should be different from presidents, governors, senators, or local offices.
By Papagino
July 29, 2010 6:43 AM | Link to this
My father was a union member for 30 years since it was required in order to hold his job. I didn’t see one good thing the union (teacher s union) ever did for him. He was reprimanded by his steward for having a Reagan bumpersticker in 84. Unions have become poison, biting the hands that feed them and driving jobs away from this country.
By Tea Party???
July 29, 2010 1:41 AM | Link to this
What do the Republicans have to hide???? I would think they would want people to know what party they are from. I have been a union member 32 years, and never did a union boss tell me who to vote for. I do not ever remember seeing a union boss?
By Papagino
July 28, 2010 5:10 PM | Link to this
The Dems and the Unions are coming to realize that their core group of voters does no research before pulling the lever and they need to have the (D) after all their candidate’s names so their voters can recognize who the Union Boss was telling them to vote for.