COLUMBUS | The nasty, noisy and costly Ohio
Supreme Court races of the last two elections are only a preview of
what's to come if Ohio doesn't change how it picks its high court
justices, said Roy Schotland, a Georgetown University law professor
and campaign finance expert.
"You all are now the poster state, the rogue state in judicial
elections," he said.
Last year, the four candidates for Ohio Supreme Court raised $6.2
million in campaign contributions, and four independent interest
groups spent another $1.83 million on TV ads in the race. Also,
Citizens for a Strong Ohio, a group backed by the Ohio Chamber of
Commerce, raised another $1 million to support its favored
candidates.
The money and attacks are likely to escalate, warned Schotland,
appearing at a one-day judicial reform forum sponsored by the Ohio
Bar Association, League of Women Voters of Ohio, Ohio Chief Justice
Thomas Moyer, the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics and the
John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy.
Generally, judicial elections garner little media attention.
They're usually uncontested, and they draw fewer votes than other
elections. "What we have are not real elections and people do not
care about them like they care about real elections," Schotland
said.
But as more money is spent on judicial elections, they "have
gotten nastier, noisier and costlier," Schotland said.
Key court rulings in recent years may accelerate the trend, he
said.
Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court loosened what judicial
candidates can say on the campaign trail without violating ethical
rules, and an appeals court covering Alabama, Florida and Georgia
has ruled that a state law prohibiting judicial candidates from
directly soliciting campaign contributions is unconstitutional,
Schotland said. Ohio has a similar law.
Schotland advised that Ohio should switch from electing its seven
Supreme Court justices to having the governor appoint them, and then
having them go through a "retention" election where voters decide
whether to keep the appointed justices.
Political consultant Dale Butland said, however, Ohio voters have
previously rejected proposals to ditch judicial elections in favor
of appointments, and Ohioans still oppose giving up their right to
vote on who sits on the bench.
"I think that's the reality we have to deal with," Butland said.
At Thursday's forum, lawmakers, judges, consultants, union
officials and others debated how to reform Ohio's judicial election
system to avoid the costly, nasty attacks seen in the 2000 and 2002
Ohio Supreme Court races.
They also wrestled with ways to counter the attack ads funded by
special interest groups, who often do not have to disclose their
members or financial backers.
Geri Palast, executive director of Justice at Stake, a national
watchdog group, said the interest groups aren't going to
"unilaterally disarm," so it'll be up to courts and lawmakers to
craft reforms.
Thursday's forum is a first step because it gives the issue
visibility and gets all sides together, but "one-day forums don't
make reform," she said.
Contact Laura A. Bischoff at (614) 224-1624 or
lbischoff@coxohio.com
[From the Dayton
Daily News: 03.07.2003]
Home | Local
index
Help | Get
newspaper home delivery
