WASHINGTON DC -- "Political professionals, corporations, outside groups and advocates are among many in Washington that the U.S. Supreme Court has left 'in [the] lurch' by apparently waiting until Jan. 11 at the earliest to issue an important campaign finance ruling, according to an article in Politico.
The colorful last line about the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission distills the full article: 'It is this huge 900-pound gorilla everybody is waiting for,' said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen," Peter Hardin, Gavel Grab. Dec 11: Editorial: The racial bias in Cuyahoga County's justice system must end
CUYAHOGA COUNTY -- "Last year, a two-part series in The Plain Dealer documented that white defendants were much more likely to have felony drug charges reduced to misdemeanors, or to receive treatment in lieu of conviction, than black defendants charged with the same crime.
The findings, based on a six-month review of hundreds of the lowest-level felony drug cases resolved between 2004 and 2007, cried out for immediate action to end the system of injustice.
Unfortunately, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason dragged his feet -- his promised study only now materializing 14 months later with proposals for a team of Cleveland State University and University of Cincinnati researchers to study inequities at every stage of the process," Cleveland Plain Dealer. Dec 9: States also await ruling in Citizens United
WASHINGTON DC -- "As Supreme Court-watchers await an opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a potential blockbuster of a campaign finance decision, the Wall Street Journal provides a good reminder of the ruling’s importance to the states.
The high court is deciding whether the government can continue to bar corporations and labor unions from spending directly from their treasuries to support or oppose candidates in federal elections. The ruling could affect how corporations spend political money in the 2010 elections, and it ultimately could affect spending on judicial elections in states where judges are elected,'" Peter Hardin, GavelGrab. Dec 7: Editorial: Worth another look
Growing tab for judicial elections invites study of other approaches
COLUMBUS -- "The last time merit selection was on the ballot, 1987, Ohio voters rejected it nearly 2-to-1.... No one can deny that the judicial-election climate has changed since voters shot down the idea 22 years ago. The money now required to run a statewide judicial campaign is astounding.
The nonpartisan watchdog group Justice at Stake reports that for the years 2000-2008, Ohio state Supreme Court races raised $21.2 million, the second-highest total in the country. Alabama, came in first at $40.9 million,"The Columbus Dispatch. Posted Dec 5. Nov 30: Thomas Suddes commentary: Chief justice won't retire quietly
COLUMBUS -- "Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer faces mandatory retirement in 13 months. But Moyer, unlike the lazybones in the legislature, doesn't take it easy: The genial Columbus Republican, chief justice for 23 years, wants to re-do how Ohio elects its highest court.
The "appointive-elective" set-up Moyer wants does not -- formally -- end Ohio voters' right to elect the seven-judge Supreme Court. But it would reduce voters' choices. So the concept wins no applause in this corner. But it's a good-faith plan, and it deserves fair consideration.
Moyer, the League of Women Voters of Ohio and the Ohio State Bar Association will firm up the specifics in 2010," Thomas Suddes, The Columbus Dispatch. Posted Nov 29. Nov 19: Editorial: There’s a better way to pick judges
COLUMBUS -- "If you ever think about judges, it’s probably at election time when you’re asked to vote for some.
Or maybe if you go to court for a ticket or are called for jury duty.
There are, however, some people who are thinking about them a lot these days — and specifically about how Ohio chooses its seven-member Supreme Court," Dayton Daily News.
“A Forum on Judicial Selection: A Time for Action” will be held Nov. 19 and 20 at the Ohio Judicial Center and the Center of Science and Industry (COSI) in Columbus. The conveners of the event are Ohio Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, the Ohio State Bar Association, and the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund. The forum is made possible by a grant from the Joyce Foundation"Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Nov 23: Chief justice suggests end to elections
COLUMBUS -- "Ohio's top judge and others plan to go to the ballot with a proposal to replace competitive elections to the state Supreme Court with a system in which the governor fills vacancies on the bench.
Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and other backers of the "merit selection" system say it would reduce the role of money in races for the seven-member Supreme Court. Successful candidates for the court typically spend $1 million or more.... Supporters can put the issue before voters in two ways: by getting three-fifths of lawmakers in the House and Senate to place it on the ballot, or by collecting more than 400,000 signatures from registered voters. Moyer said he hopes lawmakers will take up the cause. Nothing will appear on the ballot until at least 2011, he said," James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch. Posted Nov 21.
COLUMBUS -- "Gov. Ted Strickland Friday embraced discussions about jettisoning special-interest money from the selection of Ohio justices but stopped short of endorsing the end of popular elections.... Since 2000, $21 million has been spent on ads targeting races in Supreme Court races, more than in any state.... Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that campaign cash can influence a judge’s ruling," Jim provance, Toledo Blade. Posted Nov 21. Nov 9: A forum on judicial selection
COLUMBUS -- "'A Forum on Judicial Selection: A Time for Action' will be held Nov. 19 and 20 at the Ohio Judicial Center and the Center of Science and Industry (COSI) in Columbus. The conveners of the event are Ohio Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, the Ohio State Bar Association, and the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund. The forum is made possible by a grant from the Joyce Foundation.... The cost of judicial campaigns has been increasing for years, forcing judges to raise money like politicians, which has led to the corrosive public perception that justice is for sale. From 1999 to 2008, $200.4 million was raised by candidates for state supreme courts. In that time period, candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court raised $21.2 million, placing Ohio second in the nation in the amount raised by Supreme Court candidates," Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Supreme Court of Ohio. Nov 4: ‘Citizens United:’ unleashing corporate billions?
WASHINGTON DC -- "Just how much money could corporations directly pump into political spending if the U.S. Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, removes existing restrictions?
If the high court lifts a federal ban on corporate political spending for campaigns to elect or defeat federal candidates, it 'could unleash a flood of money into the political system and further diminish the public’s voice,' warns a Common Cause report using data from the Center for Responsive Politics, highlighted in the Capital Eye Blog," Peter Hardin, Gavel Grab. Oct 14: Brandenburg: Still early to gauge Caperton impact
COLUMBUS-- "An expert on recusal issues and the executive director of Justice at Stake Campaign were among court-watchers who analyzed the impact of the Supreme Court’s Caperton v. Massey decision before an audience of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers in Philadelphia.... Bert Brandenburg of Justice at Stake suggested it may be premature to gauge Caperton’s impact, and he noted that courts are uneven in keeping records about recusal motions. Given the outcome of the case and heightened interest in setting recusal rules, 'we’re having a different discussion than 10 years ago,' Brandenburg said.
Recusal has not until recently been considered a helpful remedy for tackling the influence of big spending in judicial elections, Brandenburg said," Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.
WASHINGTON DC -- "The Supreme Court signaled yesterday that it might let businesses and unions spend freely to help their favored candidates in time for next year's elections.
Such a step could roll back a century of attempts to restrain the power of corporate treasuries in American politics," Mark Sherman, Associated Press.
High Court Hears Campaign Finance Arguments "Leading off the argument was former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who said corporations have the right to free speech during elections, just as individuals do.
He faced a skeptical Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked whether corporate rights aren't different from those of an individual. 'A corporation,' she said, 'is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights.'
Ginsburg noted that corporations are free to spend money on elections through political action committees that collect individual contributions for campaigns. Olson rejected that as a solution, saying it turns corporations into ventriloquists," Nina Totenberg, National Publuc Radio.
WASHINGTON DC -- "If supporters of federal curbs on political campaign spending by corporations were counting on Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to hesitate to strike down such restrictions, they could take no comfort from the Supreme Court’s 93-minute hearing Wednesday on that historic question. Despite the best efforts of four other Justices to argue for ruling only very narrowly, the strongest impression was that they had not convinced the two members of the Court thought to be still open to that approach. At least the immediate prospect was for a sweeping declaration of independence in politics for companies and advocacy groups formed as corporations.
The Court probed deeply into Congress’ reasoning in its decades-long attempt to restrict corporate influence in campaigns for the Presidency and Congress, in a special sitting to hear a second time the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205). At issue was whether the Court was ready to overturn two of its precedents — one from 1990, the other from 2003 — upholding such limitations," Lyle Denniston, Scotusblog.
COLUMBUS -- "Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will be the headliner at a forum on Nov. 19-20 in Columbus to discuss the process for selecting justices of the Ohio Supreme Court.
'The time has come to do something to address the widespread perception that campaign contributions influence judicial decision making,' Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer said in a press release on Tuesday, Sept. 8.
'Our goal is to determine whether to pursue a new selection method for Supreme Court justices and to explore the various reforms that other states have implemented,'" William Hershey, Dayton Daily News. Sep 9: Column: Supreme Court to hear campaign finance case
WASHINGTON DC -- "The Supreme Court [today] will hear arguments from campaign finance reform advocates and opponents in a case many insiders say will be the most significant decision in more than 35 years.
The case the court will hear, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, has the potential to overturn key elements of campaign finance law that prevent corporate spending on elections, a move that would open the door to millions of dollars that could not be spent previously.
'This is the biggest case in campaign finance law, really, since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976,' said Rob Kelner, a partner at Covington & Burling and a leading Republican election lawyer. 'It has the potential to make the 2010 election the first one in the living memory of most American adults in which huge volumes of corporate money are thrown into the process,'" Reid Wilson, The Hill.
WASHINGTON DC -- "There are many complicated aspects of the campaign-finance case the Supreme Court is poised to hear Wednesday, but the issue boils down to this: Will the justices let corporations spend unlimited amounts to elect or defeat candidates for federal office? This course of action would be unwise and unnecessary to resolve the dispute at hand.
For more than a century, Congress has prohibited corporations from making contributions in federal elections. Six decades ago, in extending that ban to labor unions, Congress sensibly barred both corporations and unions from spending money on their own, rather than simply giving it to candidates, to influence federal elections.
In 1990, the court affirmed the constitutionality of this kind of restriction. In 2007, the court made clear that the corporate spending prohibition covered not only so-called magic words such as 'vote for' or 'vote against' but also communications that cannot reasonably be interpreted except as a call to such action," Washington Post.
WASHINGTON DC -- "The Supreme Court on September 9, 2009 hears a case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which re-opens the
question of whether there should be ANY limits on corporate money in our elections. The potential result? A century of modest limits on corporate campaign contributions could be rolled back and corporate money could flood our elections to
an even greater extent than they do today. Later this fall, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision," Rick, Angela and Eric, Public Citizen.
WASHINGTON DC -- "President Theodore Roosevelt campaigned as a trust-busting reformer, but was embarrassed by revelations that his 1904 campaign had received secret contributions from New York insurance companies. At his urging, Congress passed a law to keep corporate money out of political races.
Now, that century-old ban stands in danger of being overturned by the Supreme Court's conservative majority, on the basis of an equally venerable principle: free speech in politics.
The justices signaled the prospect of a profound shift in election law by scheduling an unusual special argument for Sept. 9. At issue will be whether to overturn two rulings that limit corporate spending in elections," David G. Savage, The Los Angeles Times.
WASHINGTON DC -- "President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sotomayor has brought increased attention to the U.S. Supreme Court. It also has led us to reexamine the Court’s web site, which is long overdue for an overhaul. In its current form, its web design is suggestive of the 1990s, and its functionality is similarly dated.
The Justices appear to agree. They’ve recently ask Congress for money to move control of the site in-house, taking over responsibility from the GPO. This move would allow them, in their words, to 'better control and manage the web site and to be able to expand the data and services provided by the site more efficiently.'
The current web site has many shortcomings. It doesn’t contain briefs by the parties and omits all but a few relatively recent Court opinions. Its navigation is a nightmare and its design fails to incorporate modern techniques such as RSS feeds and XML. Much information is unnecessarily locked in PDFs. And yet, in January 2009 the nine-year-old site received 18 million hits," Daniel Schuman, Sunlight Foundation. Aug 14: Should the Supreme Court alter its approach to campaign finance regulation?
WASHINGTON DC -- "Among the most important decisions the Supreme Court made last Term was its decision not to decide the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n (FEC). On the last day of its Term, the Court ordered re-argument in this case, which involves FEC regulation of the political film 'Hillary: The Movie' during the 2008 primary campaign. Although the Court might have decided the case on narrow grounds, it instead asked the parties and their amici to address a broad question: Whether two important First Amendment precedents upholding campaign finance regulation ought to be overruled.
In order to give political campaigns time to react to whatever ultimate decision the Justices reach, the Court scheduled the oral argument for September 9, before the start of the regular Term in October. The Court ordered expedited briefing on its new question. The main briefs have now been submitted, and it is clear that the case could have far-reaching consequences for the regulation of campaign finance and, more broadly, for our democracy," Michael C. Dorf, FindLaw.
COLUMBUS -- "Ohio's top jurist assailed the role of money in the courts in his strongest terms yet, saying yesterday that the state needs to find an alternative to million-dollar judicial elections.
Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer also said three cases currently in or destined for the Supreme Court could be among the most significant of his 22 years on the state's highest bench.
Speaking to the Columbus Metropolitan Club, Moyer said polls have shown that most people -- and even many judges -- believe that rulings are influenced by campaign contributions," James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch. Aug 6: Edward Foley: Citizens United, Stare Decisis, and Democracy
COLUMBUS -- "In reading the amicus brief in Citizen United filed by the congressional sponsors of the McCain-Feingold law, I am struck—and impressed—by the candor with which they address head-on the 'vehement disagree[ment]' that some Justices have towards Austin and McConnell. The brief observes that this vehement disagreement is not grounds for overruling, precisely because there is nothing new about this fierce opposition to those precedents on the part of some Justices.... The brief clearly wants to put Austin and McConnell in the category of Roe and Miranda—big constitutional decisions that have both vociferous opponents and supporters, on and off the bench—and thus Citizens United needs to adhere to the controversial precedents in the same way that Casey and Dickerson did.... Up to now, efforts to defend Austin seem to have taken an either-or approach. Either defend on stare decisis grounds. Or defend as a correct interpretation of the First Amendment. It seems that there ought to be a defense that is a mixture of the two: Austin is not so antithetical to democracy that it does not deserve adherence by even a Justice who is strongly convinced of its error," Edward Foley, Election Law @ Moritz.
WASHINGTON DC -- "One 1990 case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, held that corporations could be barred from spending their own funds — as opposed to using a political action committee to which employees contribute — to urge a candidate's election or defeat.
The second, part of the 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, said that the prohibition on corporate spending could be extended to 'electioneering communications'— advertising that mentions a candidate shortly before an election even if it doesn't explicitly support or oppose that person.... Overruling Austin would be a disaster, and curtailing McCain-Feingold only slightly less so. The floodgates would be opened for corporations, and labor unions, to run ads supporting or attacking candidates. The only restriction would be that they couldn't give to candidates directly," Ruth Marcus, Washington Post. Aug 4: Blog: Chief justice determined to tidy up judiciary on his way out
COLUMBUS -- "Critics label the [Chief Justice Thomas J.] Moyer court a 'chamber-of-commerce court' because its rulings often favor insurance companies and other corporate interests, which have provided the lion's share of campaign support to GOP justices. In the past two Supreme Court elections, the political arm of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce spent $2.3 million on television airtime to support four Republican candidates, all of whom won.
Moyer argued that those campaign contributions follow a judicial philosophy, they don't direct it. Still, he couldn't deny the perception of quid pro quo decisions: 'This is why I think it's so important to get the big money out of this election process, because if you do, you at least greatly diminish that perception.'
Moyer said that as Republicans, the seven justices ('and this is really a generalization') share a philosophy that honors 'the sanctity of a contract,' personal responsibility and 'strictly applying a statute the way it is written with the facts of the case, even though we may not even like the outcome,'" Joe Hallett, The Columbus Dispatch. Aug 4: Editorial: Supreme reforms for a supreme body
CLEVELAND -- "Judicial term limits and mandatory retirement ages not only would make the confirmation process less partisan, it also would create a modest amount of turnover and ensure that one party or president does not stack the court. But more than the prospect of doddering, partisan judges is playing out in this crucial branch of government.... The obvious partisanship of many decisions casts the Supremes in a whole new light. If it's going to act like a legislature, then should its members remain unelected? Or if appointment remains the preferred selection process, should it be for a life term? And should the president remain the sole appointing authority, and the highly unrepresentative Senate the sole confirming authority?... Requiring 60 votes also would be an acknowledgement of how unrepresentative the U.S. Senate is. Of 100 Senators, only 17 are women and five are racial minorities. A strong case can be made that a chamber as unrepresentative as the Senate should not be confirming lifetime appointments -- especially not by simple majority vote. Doing so ensures that the unrepresentative features of the Senate spread to the high court," Steven Hill, Cleveland Plain Dealer. Jul 13: Editorial: Here's a Supreme Court jargon decoder
Susan Gellman
COLUMBUS -- "First, whose original intent are we talking about? The drafters of the Constitution or Amendment? The Congress that adopted it? The states that ratified it? Just the representatives who actually voted, or the people they represented? All those represented, or just those who were recognized as citizens at the time? You can -- and people sincerely do -- make good, rational arguments for any of these choices.
Second, what about 'original intent of original intent'? That is, how did the Founders envision later generations interpreting the Constitution? We don't know whether they intended to try to keep things static or to have them develop and change. Did they want us to try to channel them and decide as they would have, or did they mean to pass the torch, trusting us to stick to their basic goals? There's a lot to support the latter view, particularly the brevity and generality of the Constitution itself. All rational, 'originalist' positions.
Third, how do you determine original intent? You could examine records of floor debates and memoranda, but there isn't much there, and the members of the Constitutional Congress (or Congress, for Amendments) often disagreed. Even the writings of the main drafters and Founders aren't always consistent; generations of scholars argue over what James Madison or Thomas Jefferson thought about religion and citizenship. Or do you ask what people commonly understood terms like cruel and unusual punishment or religion to mean when the Constitution was written?," Susan Gellman, The Columbus Dispatch.
COLUMBUS -- "The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that a West Virginia Supreme Court judge should have recused himself from a case involving a big campaign contributor raises a caution sign for many states, including Ohio.
The five-justice majority didn't set a hard and fast standard for how much monetary influence was too much, and that bothered the four-justice minority.
The dissenters fear that the nebulous nature of the ruling will invite many more challenges to elected judges' integrity. If that proves true, the blame should be fixed where it belongs -- not on the court's majority, but on states such as Ohio, whose insistence on the popular election of judges cannot fail to politicize their courts," Cleveland Plain Dealer. Jul 1: Justices still wrestle with their biases
WASHINGTON DC -- "The U.S. Supreme Court claims to be above politics, and it sometimes achieves that aspiration.
But far more than we want to admit, the justices of the Supreme Court reflect the country's competing political tendencies and often reach their decisions not through the exercise of Platonic reason rooted in a careful analysis of the Constitution but by way of raw political bargaining.
The court's ruling this week on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act will go down as a classic in the history of judicial logrolling. The court avoided catastrophe through a second-best decision that leaves the core issues raised by the case undecided," E.J. Dionne, Washington Post. Jun 24: Editorial: Narrow escape A critical provision of the Voting Rights Act survives the Supreme Court
AKRON -- "Listen to the oral argument in April, and the fair conclusion was: The Supreme Court appeared ready to cast aside a core provision of the Voting Rights Act. On Monday, the court ruled in the case involving a Texas utility district seeking to ''bail out'' of Section 5, an aspect of the law requiring covered jurisdictions, mostly in the South, to get permission from the Justice Department or a federal court before they make changes to voting procedures.
An 8-1 majority granted relief to the utility district, but it did so narrowly. It limited the option to small jurisdictions that do not handle their own voter registration. That amounts to a qualified victory for those concerned about the court acting hastily to remove a key tool in protecting civil rights, especially in view of the coming Census and the redrawing of congressional and legislative districts," Akron Beacon Journal. Jun 23: Justices retain oversight by U.S. on voting
Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON DC -- "The Supreme Court on Monday left intact one of the signature legacies of the civil rights movement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court, in an 8-to-1 decision, ducked the central question in a case that was the most closely watched of the term. Most election law specialists had expected the court to rule on whether a core provision of the law was constitutional, and many were betting the answer would be no.
The provision allows federal oversight of election law changes in some places," Adam Liptak, New York Times. Court sidesteps major ruling over Voting Rights Act. NPR.org
COLUMBUS -- "The U.S. Supreme Court recognized a clear conflict of interest in ruling last week that a West Virginia Supreme Court justice should have recused himself from a case. An interested party had spent an extraordinary amount, $3 million, in an election -- not directly on the justice's campaign, but to his benefit.
The majority opinion, however, declined to offer guidelines for states on when other judges should recuse themselves, so the Ohio Supreme Court might benefit from setting some formal guidelines for Ohio's courts.... Ohio is in less danger of campaign quid pro quo than some states. Campaign-contribution limits greatly reduce the chance that money from one donor will influence a candidate: An individual or a political-action committee can give no more than $11,395.56 to a statewide candidate," The Columbus Dispatch. Posted Jun 20.
NEWARK -- "Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer reacted to the ruling by calling for his court to impose a state policy on judges to allow parties to request a judge be removed from a case if there's an appearance of bias based on campaign donations.
Ohio Citizen Action reports the top industries donating to the Ohio Supreme Court races came from insurance, the legal profession, health and manufacturing. A 2006 New York Times report showed that, in a 12-year period, justices on the Ohio Supreme Court rarely removed themselves from cases involving their campaign contributors and, on average, decided in their favor 70 percent of the time.
So we strongly support Moyer's proposal and think it's critical to maintaining the rights of voters to elect Ohio's Supreme Court justices," Newark Advocate. Jun 16: Column: A win for fairer courts The Caperton ruling will establish clearer recusal rules for Judges who may face conflicts of interest
WASHINGTON DC -- "The Supreme Court's landmark Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. ruling has prompted sweeping predictions on both sides of the debate over judges and campaign money.
Some see the high court's June 8 ruling as a signal that states should reconsider the system of installing judges through election campaigns, which have become increasingly costly and hard-fought. Thirty-nine states elect at least some judges.... he circumstances of the Caperton v. Massey case were unusual, but they represented an extreme example of a problem that's been building over the past decade. As the cost of judicial elections has risen, judges in Illinois, Ohio and other states have faced criticism for failing to withdraw from cases involving individuals who bankrolled their campaigns," Eliza Newlin Carney, NationalJournal.com Jun 15: Method for picking justices must go
COLUMBUS-- "Yes, all seven justices on this state's highest court are Republican, and they got there either by raising piles of cash themselves or with assistance from their party, or in recent years with more than a little help from their third-party independent-expenditure friends... Ohio Citizen Action asked [Chief Justice] Moyer on Friday to put together a study committee to examine third-party campaign funds, their influence on judicial campaigns and recusal standards.
In her letter, Catherine Turcer, with Citizen Action, quoted some staggering figures from the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake in New York," Dennis Willard, Akron Beacon Journal. Published June 13. Jun 15: Editorial: Bias on the bench
TOLEDO -- "THE U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the obvious this week in a decision from West Virginia with sobering consequences for the 39 states (including Ohio) that elect judges. In a 5-4 ruling, the court found for the first time that judges who take huge sums in campaign contributions from those whose cases come before them should recuse themselves.
As encouraging as the outcome was in marrying common sense with legal sense, it also gives rise to several depressing thoughts. In the first place, the obvious problem here did not move the dissenting four justices past their ideological moorings to the point where they wanted to do something about it.
Consider the facts that the moderate and liberal majority sought to address and the conservative minority would have ignored. Hugh Caperton, a West Virginia coal company owner, had sued a Massey Energy affiliate alleging fraud and in 2002 a West Virginia jury awarded him $50 million in damages. Massey appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court," Toledo Blade. Jun 11: Ohio chief justice wants new ethics policy
COLUMBUS-- "[Ohio Chief Justice Thomas] Moyer plans to address the issue [a new policy at the state's highest court] with his fellow state Supreme Court justices, Davey said. He also plans to hold a conference later this year to discuss judicial policies... Catherine Turcer, who directs Ohio Citizen Action's Money in Politics Project, called on Moyer Wednesday to create a study committee to examine the influence of issue advertising on judicial elections in Ohio....
'It really highlights all the money that swirls around these judicial campaigns,' she said," JoAnne Viviano, Associated Press. Letter to Chief Justice calling for recusal study committee Catherine Turcer, Ohio Citizen Action. Jun 10: Ruling on 'Probable Bias' spotlights political reality
NEW YORK, NY-- "From 1999 to 2008, state supreme court candidates raised $200 million nationwide, more than double the amount they raised in the previous nine years, according to Justice at Stake, a Washington, D.C. organization that opposes campaign spending in judicial races.... Last year in Ohio, where two supreme court seats were up for grabs, insurance companies and corporate-defense law firms were among the largest contributors to the victorious Republican candidates, while labor unions gave heavily to the Democratic candidates, according to a study by Ohio Citizen Action, a government watchdog group.
Recently, Ohio business groups have donated more than their pro-consumer counterparts, one reason the state's supreme court is all Republican, said Catherine Turcer, the director of Ohio Citizen's Money In Politics project," Nathan Koppel, Wall Street Journal. Jun 9: Ohio justices may rethink recusals in light of U.S. Supreme Court decision
COLUMBUS -- "Catherine Turcer, of Ohio Citizen Action, a government watchdog group, said the ruling will finally force Ohio to deal with the worsening perception that opinions too often are influenced by cash donations.
'It brings into light that a good three out of four Americans believe campaign spending impacts what happens in the courtroom,' Turcer said. 'It allows, really for the first time, that at the state level we do something about this by establishing recusal standards.'... A 2006 New York Times investigation of the Ohio Supreme Court found that justices routinely sat on cases involving their donors and voted in their favor 70 percent of the time during the previous 12-year period studied," Reginald Fields, Cleveland Plain Dealer.
WASHINGTON DC -- "The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.
By a 5-4 vote in a case from West Virginia, the court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit filed against the company of the most generous supporter of his election deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.... The West Virginia case involved more than $3 million spent by the chief executive of Massey Energy Co. to help elect state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin. At the same time, Massey was appealing a verdict, which now totals $82.7 million with interest, in a dispute with a local coal company. Benjamin refused to step aside from the case, despite repeated requests, and was part of a 3-2 decision to overturn the verdict," Associated Press.
"Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when—without the other parties’ consent—a man chooses the judge in his own cause. Applying this principle to the judicial election process, there was here a serious, objective risk of actual bias that required Justice Benjamin’s recusal."Justice Anthony Kennedy, Page 11-16, Decision Caperton v Massey.
In favor of the petitioner Caperton: Justice Anthony Kennedy,
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissent. Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.
COLUMBUS -- "This community-wide event is focusing on judicial independence. The event is free and open to the public, with ample free parking available.
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Leo Yassenoff Jewish Community Center, 1125 College Avenue, Columbus, OH 43209
A new poll reveals that a large majority of citizens doubt their elected judges can be impartial in cases involving their biggest election campaign financial supporters. The Columbus Dispatch is focusing on contributions to state Supreme Court justices. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear an important case about judicial recusal. Come to the Town Hall Meeting and learn why the judicial branch is in the news these days, how it’s different from the other branches of government, and why judicial impartiality is critical to our democracy.
Speakers include The Honorable Kim Browne, judge for Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Domestic/Juvenile Division, and Scott Sturges of McNamara & McNamara LLP," Impact. Feb 24: New Justice At Stake Poll: Public wants firewall between funders, judges
WASHINGTON DC -- "By overwhelming margins, U.S. adults doubt that elected judges can be impartial in cases involving their biggest election campaign financial supporters, and the public says judges should step aside from such cases, according to a new national poll by Harris Interactive.
The poll comes as the Supreme Court prepares to consider when judges whose campaign supporters appear before them should step aside.... The amount of money made no significant difference in attitudes on whether a judge should recuse him or herself from cases involving a party who spent $50,000 or $1 million to elect the judge. In both cases, about 85 percent felt a judge should step aside, and only about 10 percent felt the judge should stay," Justice At Stake. Supreme Court case focuses on issue of judges' bias David G. Savage, Baltimore Sun. Feb 2: Blog: Conservancy judges can meet in secret
COLUMBUS --"Panels of judges who control Ohio's conservancy districts are not subject to Ohio's public-meeting laws and can deliberate and raise property owners' assessments in closed meetings.
That's the upshot of the Ohio Supreme Court's 4-3 refusal this week to review an appeals court decision affirming a lower-court decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Stark County woman.... The appeals court found, and the Ohio Supreme Court agreed by not reviewing its ruling, that courts and judges are exempt from public meeting laws. Conservancy district oversight panels are lawfully created courts, the appelate judges ruled," Randy Ludlow, The Columbus Dispatch. Jan 21: Blog: Ohio Supreme Court reverses ruling on judicial candidates, political affiliations
COLUMBUS --"Two weeks after passing a rule that would allow judicial candidates to align themselves with political parties for general elections, the Ohio Supreme Court without explanation or public notice has reversed its decision.
The court held public meetings last year to draft changes for the Code of Judicial Conduct before approving the provisions on Dec. 30. But the court never gave any notice of a secret meeting at which the political-speech provision was reconsidered.
The seven Supreme Court justices, all Republicans, voted 5-2 on Jan. 13 to reinstate a provision that would block judicial candidates from stating their political affiliations in campaign materials once past the primary election," Reginald Fields, Cleveland Plain Dealer. Jan 6: Editorial: Open question Justices' revised records rules might bring greater secrecy to Ohio's courts
COLUMBUS -- "The Ohio Supreme Court's amended rules declare that the state's court records "are presumed open to public access," but is that how things will work in practice?
The revised Rules of Superintendence, drawn up by an advisory commission and adopted by the court on Dec. 22, take effect on May 1. They grant judges considerable latitude in sealing all or portions of documents and don't make it particularly easy for the public and the news media to undo the secrecy.
So while the court declares that Ohio's judicial-system documents will remain extensively accessible, a different story might unfold later this year. The Supreme Court will conduct training sessions for courthouse officials on the changes, but the openness of court records is likely to vary from county to county and judge to judge," The Columbus Dispatch. Jan 1: Judicial races given leeway for partisan ads Campaign gag loosened
COLUMBUS -- "Ohio judges run in partisan primaries, ask for support at political conventions, and occasionally join hands with labor leaders at political events, but until now state judicial rules have forbidden them from advertising themselves as Republicans or Democrats.
Rules newly adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court to take effect on March 1 will lift that prohibition as well as slightly loosen the gag on what judges and judicial candidates can say on the campaign trail when it comes to legal matters... 'For years, right after the primary it was as if everyone in the political world knew who was the Democrat and who was the Republican, yet they weren't permitted to say it,' said Catherine Turcer, of Ohio Citizen Action's Money in Politics project.
'At some point, it's just about being honest, saying this is who I am,' she said. 'It's a choice. Candidates can choose not to use labels if they don't want to, but it does give voters some tools for better understanding,'" Jim Provance, Toledo Blade. Posted Dec 31. Dec 3: Blog: Justice: Court is nonpartisan
COLUMBUS --"However the Ohio Supreme Court rules in a case that could affect the outcome of a closely fought congressional race, it's inevitable that some people will view the court's decision through a partisan lens. The court is expected to decide soon whether to allow about 1,000 disputed Franklin County provisional ballots from the Nov. 4 election to be counted. Some of those ballots will be counted in the race for the 15th Congressional District, where Republican state Sen. Steve Stivers clings to a 594-vote lead over Democratic Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy.
The Democratic Ohio secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, wants the votes to be counted, as do the Ohio Democratic Party and the ACLU of Ohio," James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch. Oct 31: Ohio high-court races garner fewer dollars Chambers, big business contribute most to state GOP campaigns; Dems get little
"What happened is the rules were changed to accommodate them. But the one good thing we do have is that we have some sense of where this money comes from. On one hand we have one chamber of commerce giving to another chamber of commerce, but we do get a better flavor of where the money comes from - insurance interests, those who want tort reform and a business-friendly court, and manufacturers," said Catherine Turcer, of the watchdog group Ohio Citizen Action.
COLUMBUS --"At the Republican National Convention last month, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton lamented the scant attention the two high-court races on this year's ballot have drawn.
'We're raising very little money,' she told the Ohio delegation. 'We'll be lucky if we get to $1 million, which is 50 percent of what we raised [in 2002]. We can't win an election on that.'
But while she appealed for strong grass-roots work, it was the corporation-backed Partnership for Ohio's Future that came to the assistance of Justices Stratton and Maureen O'Connor with nearly $900,000 in ads urging Ohioans to 'thank' the two justices. Both are seeking re-election on Tuesday," Jim Provance, Toledo Blade. Oct 20: Ohio justice removes herself from voter case
COLUMBUS --"An Ohio Supreme Court justice removed herself today from a dispute over how voter registration information is verified.
Justice Maureen O'Connor, a Republican, recused herself a case involving GOP fundraiser David Myhal and Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
Myhal filed a lawsuit Friday just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Brunner in the case. He argues Brunner is violating the law by not providing counties with the names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don't match records in other government databases," Associated Press.
COLUMBUS --"A major law firm and an insurance company lavished contributions on two incumbent Ohio Supreme Court justices, revealing an 'organized pattern of giving that highlights the need for reform,' according to a report from an activist group.
Ohio Citizen Action's Money in Politics report didn't fault Justices Maureen O'Connor and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton for taking thousands of dollars from Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLC and Cincinnati Insurance Companies.
The report, however, said the contributions fit a pattern of 'organized giving' that raises concerns," James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch. Oct 16: Organized giving highlights need for reform
COLUMBUS --"According to a study released today by Ohio Citizen Action, campaign contributions to candidates for Ohio Supreme Court reveal an organized pattern of giving that highlights the need for reform. Both Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Maureen O’Connor received 92 contributions from Porter Wright lawyers in increments of either $108.69 or $108.70, totaling $10,000. Maureen O’Connor’s campaign originally reported that Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLP law firm gave $10,000 and amended the filing on October 15, 2008. Canon 7 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct established contribution limits for organizations at $5,500.... 'There are a number of different solutions. The Ohio Supreme Court could establish disqualification or withdrawal standards based on large contributions, not just from a single donor, but collectively from all donors associated with a party to litigation or with counsel,' said Catherine Turcer, director of Ohio Citizen Action’s Money in Politics Project. 'Another option is to establish a cap on contributions from individuals that belong to the same organization. Organizations should not be able to do an end-run around the limitations by steering employees. The Court cannot continue to simply ignore this problem,'" Ohio Citizen Action.
COLUMBUS --"Justices and candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court have spent a lot of time over the years pontificating about ways to combat the perception that donors to court candidates have an advantage when their cases are heard.
Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer has proposed a system where justices are appointed and then run once to stay on the court. Two years ago, appeals Judge William O'Neill unsuccessfully ran for the Supreme Court on a platform of not accepting donations from anyone.
Now, Joseph D. Russo, a Cuyahoga County judge and candidate for the Supreme Court, has entered the fray with his own plan," James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch. Aug 13: Blog: Right Runner Strickland's process to select judicial appointments anything BUT impartial and transparent.
COLUMBUS -- "Back in January of 2007 Ted Strickland promised to establish a process for selecting judicial appointments that relied less on the recommendations of county party chairmen and more on the recommendations of the Ohio Judicial Appointment Recommendations Panels (OJARP). This was supposed to make the process more transparent and inclusive of all parties involved. According to the Dayton Daily News, Strickland said the following:
'Ohioans deserve a transparent and inclusive government and, under my administration, that will include the process of selecting judicial appointees,'
In addition:
Catherine Turcer, legislative director for Ohio Citizen Action, said in a prepared statement that a majority of Ohio judges initially reach the bench through appointments by the governor and that the selections 'should not be based on back-room deals, but on judicial qualifications,'" Gary Lewis, Right Runner.Posted August 12. Aug 4: High court review sought on judicial recusals West Virginia case triggers key ethical query
NEW YORK, NY -- "The ethical hornets' nest stirred up by the refusal of an acting West Virginia chief justice to recuse himself from a multimillion-dollar appeal involving his major campaign contributor has reached the U.S. Supreme Court in a petition framing today's increasingly unsettling intersection of money and judicial elections...
The 'situation' in West Virginia developed around an appeal by Don Blankenship, chairman and CEO of Massey Energy Co., of a $50 million jury award in 2002 for tortious interference with existing contractual relations, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, in a suit against his company by Caperton of Harman Mining. With post-trial interest, the award grew to $76 million. Between the verdict and Blankenship's filing of the appeal with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in 2006, there was a hotly contested battle for a seat on that court between incumbent Justice Warren McGraw and then-attorney Brent Benjamin. Blankenship reportedly made campaign expenditures of $3 million in that battle, the bulk of which went to a so-called Section 527 organization, And for the Sake of the Kids, working to defeat McGraw, about $517,000 of which was in direct support of Benjamin," Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal.
COLUMBUS -- "It's probably little surprise that the two incumbent justices on the Ohio Supreme Court have jumped to an early fundraising lead over their challengers.
Justices Maureen O'Connor and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, both Republicans, are known in the legal and business circles that provide much of the money for races for Ohio's top court. In addition, incumbents are virtually assured of reelection; the last time one was unseated, Ronald Reagan was president.
But what may be surprising is the margin. Ohio Citizen Action, a group that tracks the influence of money in the political system, found that O'Connor and Stratton raised more than 26 times the money of their Democratic challengers, Joseph D. Russo and Peter M. Sikora. The lead was so overwhelming that the incumbents out-raised their challengers among constituencies where Democrats might be expected to compete, such as lawyers,"
James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch. July 29: Ohio Citizen Action releases study examining Supreme Court contributions
COLUMBUS -- "Contributions to candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court showcase the power of incumbency, and the strong interest that the insurance, manufacturing and health care industries have in Ohio's top tribunal. According to a study released today by Ohio Citizen Action, incumbents out-raised their challengers in excess of 26 to 1. The fundraising imbalance was most pronounced in the contest between incumbent Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton ($244,281) who raised 31 times more money than her challenger Peter M. Sikora ($7,660).
With the governor's office now in Democratic hands, and Republican dominance in the Ohio General Assembly threatened, GOP-dominated business interests are hoping to keep the all-Republican Supreme Court intact. Combined business interests contributed a total of $97,680 to incumbent Maureen O’Connor and $92,868 to Evelyn Lundberg Stratton. This can be sharply contrasted by the challengers. Joseph D. Russo raised $321 from business interests and Peter M. Sikora $4,300.... 'Since record-breaking 2002, challengers have been true underdogs,' said Catherine Turcer, Director of Ohio Citizen Action’s Money in Politics Project. 'It may be that campaign cash will come to these candidates closer to the election. However, other races may be the priority for the Democrats this year. This would mean that the incumbent justices would not be truly challenged,'"
Ohio Citizen Action. May 12:Group wary of justices, money link
COLUMBUS -- "Pointing to a new report that says money is the 'mother's milk' of Ohio Supreme Court races, a reform-minded group is asking justices to step down from cases in which one of the parties donated significant amounts to his or her campaign.
Ohio Citizen Action asked the Supreme Court's task force dealing with judicial conduct to consider forcing justices to recuse themselves from cases involving major contributors, although the group did not suggest a dollar amount," James Nash, Columbus Dispatch. Published Tuesday, May 10.
COLUMBUS -- Letter to Judge Thomas Bryant, Chair
Task Force on the Code of Judicial Conduct
Supreme Court of Ohio, "At minimum, a rule should be established that triggers disqualification after receipt of a large aggregate contribution, not just from a single donor, but collectively from all donors associated with a party to litigation or with counsel. An example of aggregate contributions that could trigger disqualification would be contributions from corporate officers, management-level employees and law firm partners," Catherine Turcer, Director of the Money in Politics Project, Ohio Citizen Action. 31 Kb doc.
COLUMBUS -- "Judicial independence means that judges are free to decide cases fairly and impartially, relying only on the facts and the law. It means that judges are protected from political pressure, legislative pressure, special interest pressure, media pressure, public pressure, financial pressure, or even personal pressure. Judicial independence goes back to the U.S. Constitution. Our country’s founders, and each state’s founders, worked to protect courts from undue pressure. They knew that it takes fair and impartial decisions to protect our rights—and uphold the rule of law. More than 200 years later, judicial independence is still an important issue. Indeed, the threat to fair and impartial courts—and judicial independence—is growing," press release, Justice at Stake.
WASHINGTON DC -- "Political professionals, corporations, outside groups and advocates are among many in Washington that the U.S. Supreme Court has left 'in [the] lurch' by apparently waiting until Jan. 11 at the earliest to issue an important campaign finance ruling, according to an article in Politico.
The colorful last line about the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission distills the full article: 'It is this huge 900-pound gorilla everybody is waiting for,' said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen," Peter Hardin, Gavel Grab.
WASHINGTON DC -- "As Supreme Court-watchers await an opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a potential blockbuster of a campaign finance decision, the Wall Street Journal provides a good reminder of the ruling’s importance to the states.
The high court is deciding whether the government can continue to bar corporations and labor unions from spending directly from their treasuries to support or oppose candidates in federal elections. The ruling could affect how corporations spend political money in the 2010 elections, and it ultimately could affect spending on judicial elections in states where judges are elected,'" Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.
COLUMBUS -- "Ohio judges run in partisan primaries, ask for support at political conventions, and occasionally join hands with labor leaders at political events, but until now state judicial rules have forbidden them from advertising themselves as Republicans or Democrats.
Rules newly adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court to take effect on March 1 will lift that prohibition as well as slightly loosen the gag on what judges and judicial candidates can say on the campaign trail when it comes to legal matters... 'For years, right after the primary it was as if everyone in the political world knew who was the Democrat and who was the Republican, yet they weren't permitted to say it,' said Catherine Turcer, of Ohio Citizen Action's Money in Politics project.
'At some point, it's just about being honest, saying this is who I am,' she said. 'It's a choice. Candidates can choose not to use labels if they don't want to, but it does give voters some tools for better understanding,'" Jim Provance, Toledo Blade. Posted Dec 31.
COLUMBUS -- "Back in January of 2007 Ted Strickland promised to establish a process for selecting judicial appointments that relied less on the recommendations of county party chairmen and more on the recommendations of the Ohio Judicial Appointment Recommendations Panels (OJARP). This was supposed to make the process more transparent and inclusive of all parties involved. According to the Dayton Daily News, Strickland said the following:
'Ohioans deserve a transparent and inclusive government and, under my administration, that will include the process of selecting judicial appointees,'
In addition:
Catherine Turcer, legislative director for Ohio Citizen Action, said in a prepared statement that a majority of Ohio judges initially reach the bench through appointments by the governor and that the selections 'should not be based on back-room deals, but on judicial qualifications,'" Gary Lewis, Right Runner.