11/11/02

Sensing that the time may be ripe for re form, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer moved decisively last week to begin a discussion about the way this state elects its judges.

In the wake of yet another election in which sleazy advertisements paid for by self-interested donors distorted the records of candidates and demeaned the reputation of the state's highest court, Moyer has raised a long-overdue idea. As the chief justice said two days after last week's election, "We have been subjected to the dark side of democracy. The message is a direct attack on our courts. We are telling people that we don't expect judges to be fair and impartial."

Moyer has called for a forum in January where all interested parties would discuss possible changes in the way Supreme Court justices are elected. And he has wisely steered clear of championing any specific proposal.

States select high court justices in many ways, but no system is more flawed than Ohio's - where candidates compete in partisan primaries and then run in a nonpartisan general election. And though some interest groups may not like it, the clear trend in this nation is away from a direct election of Supreme Court and appellate court judges. In all, 29 of the 50 states have some type of merit selection process, or a system based on retention elections.

In the past, among Ohio's most outspoken critics of merit selection have been Democrats, labor leaders and trial lawyers. But their opposition ignores the fact that a form of merit selection already exists in Democratic-leaning states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland and Connecticut.

Last Tuesday, both Democratic candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court lost their election contests by wide margins. In the process, the Republicans took ideological control of the court. For Democrats to oppose a thoughtful discussion of merit selection at this juncture - especially a discussion headed by a moderate and fair-minded chief justice - would defy common sense.

As this page stated a week ago, the exorbitant amount of money used to finance anonymous speech in Ohio Supreme Court contests has created a perception - and perhaps even the reality - that justice is for sale in this state.

Ohioans deserve better. They deserve a court that very clearly dispenses justice in an even-handed way - a court that is above suspicion.

Campaigns hijacked by interest groups - as the last two have been - cannot produce that result.