Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > October > 11 > Entry
Editorial: Electing justices outdated; hurts court’s standing
The Ohio Supreme Court gave Sen. Jon Husted the benefit of the doubt.
In the fight over whether he is a resident of Kettering and can vote in Montgomery County, it said:
“Because of the sometimes conflicting nature of these sections (of voter-residency law), when multiple sections are applicable — as here — it is difficult to find by clear and convincing evidence that a person is not a resident of the county claimed.”
In other words, yes, there are sections of law that suggest that Sen. Husted is not a resident of Kettering; but other sections suggest he meets the standards.
The court was right to give him the benefit of the doubt. It had plenty of legal reason. And legislators should have a lot of leeway in these matters. Sen. Husted married a Columbus woman while serving in the House of Representatives and served as speaker of the House, an especially demanding job. He lived as one might expect under the circumstances. That shouldn’t deprive him of the right to vote in his district.
Still, we have here an awkward situation. Sen. Husted is a Republican, as is the entire court. Indeed, every Republican who has voted on the Husted matter has voted in his favor, while all the Democrats have opposed him.
Moreover, legitimate qualms can be raised about the court’s decision. The decision never mentions the main precedent that Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner cited in her decision against Sen. Husted. And the court embraces the view that he intends to return to Montgomery County, even though he is running for statewide office and his wife is from Columbus.
When Secretary Brunner ruled against Sen. Husted, he and other Republicans said the reason was partisanship. Now that the court has ruled, Democrats are saying or implying that the reason is partisanship. Nobody can put those concerns to rest.
This case arises in the wake of other high-profile decisions by the state’ top court. The court shot down Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan to open racetracks to slot machines without a vote by the public.
It also rejected a challenge to part of the CAT (commercial activity tax), a central part of the state’s economic structure.
Inevitably at a time like this, attention focuses on the fact that the court is entirely Republican and that its members are elected.
In truth, the court is not on a partisan toot. Its decision about slot machines seems obvious. Gov. Strickland was claiming too much power to extend gambling.
The CAT was passed by the Republicans in 2005. Yet Democrats wanted this ruling as much. Few in Columbus wanted yet another budget crisis now.
If not a partisan toot, what these cases do suggest is that the court has a crucial role. And, therefore, minimizing the amount of cynicism about court decisions would be a good thing.
As Dayton Daily New Columbus correspondent Bill Hershey reports in Sunday’s paper, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer worries that the court’s credibility is undermined by the importance of money in court elections, especially because most of the money often comes from groups with clear financial interests in court decisions: insurance companies, trial lawyers and the like.
Justice Moyer promotes some sort of “merit selection” process to pick justices without an election, which many states already have. (To keep a role for voters, justices might be subjected to voter disapproval after serving a term.)
Such a process does not completely eliminate all concerns about partisanship. But it does give courts more credibility than the Ohio Supreme Court has.
It also reduces the advantages to a candidate with a well- known name or a lot of money or a background in elective office.
It reduces the burdens on voters to learn about multiple races, which they often fail to do. And it reduces the role of vacuous, misleading television ads.
The chief is right. Ohio needs this reform.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Comments
By G
October 11, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this
Thanks for being a leader.
By No Change
October 12, 2009 10:06 PM | Link to this
Sorry Chief Justice, the court, nor any other court across this land needs reformed. The people do just fine with the constitutional ability to VOTE OUR those who no longer fulfill their oath. We don’t need politicians or “board” of those who know better than the people selecting their buddies on the good ole boy system. Nice try, but we’ll keep the election process all the same even if YOU don’t like it.
By Quentin
October 13, 2009 1:38 AM | Link to this
I have complained about corrupt judges for YEARS to the DDN and they could care less since the corruption follows liberal beliefs. Suddenly they find the system is corrupt and bad when it is not following their desires and report on it? Sorry but I think a child’s death, another being sexually abused and the court ignoring it is a bit more important and shows more corruption than the vote to follow existing laws for Husted! I know I have had a HECK of a lot more evidence of my claims than what they are complaining about in this case. www.HurleyMustGo.com has the info they ignored and teir reporters even had MORE i can’t post publicly!
By Rob
October 13, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this
Q beat me to it. Where was all the reform calls when Dems held the Ohio Supreme Court? Kind of like your hollow redistricting calls. Still, an appoint/confirm process is a good idea. But please don’t eventry to tell me that this would remove politics from the equation.
By The Truth
October 13, 2009 9:00 AM | Link to this
Is this a hollow attempt to get a procedure in place to allow for “certain judges who don’t have a propensity for campaigning and may have media connections an opportunity for an APPOINTMENT?” Only the DDN staff knows for sure.
By Integritas
October 14, 2009 9:29 AM | Link to this
I agree with Quentin. There are judges who act like they are above the law. I feel that judges have as close to absolute power as anyone in our country. Everyone else must follow established time lines or be barred from having their “day in Court,” but a judge however can take as much time as he or she likes to decide cases. Why can’t there be standards established for timely court decision to be announced.
By Integritas
October 14, 2009 9:30 AM | Link to this
I agree with Quentin. There are judges who act like they are above the law. I feel that judges have as close to absolute power as anyone in our country. Everyone else must follow established time lines or be barred from having their “day in Court,” but a judge however can take as much time as he or she likes to decide cases. Why can’t there be standards established for timely court decision to be announced.
By Quentin
October 14, 2009 12:43 PM | Link to this
Oh! There are laws, proceedures and the rest but a judge can ignore most of them with total immunity. Most people don’t realize, the BAR Association is a PRIVATE organization you MUST be a member of to be a lawyer or judge. They are also the ones tasked with discipline for violations. Now since they get their dues from the members they have a vested interest in protecting them even when they violate rules, laws and etc. But hey, why should they follow laws and rules since they ARE the law as far as they care and no one will stand up to them! I protest with my child who was RAPED against a judge ignoring it and not a single news in the area will even LOOK at the case or report on it.