judgesonmerit.org

Yesterday, the Ohio Supreme Court changed one of the rules governing its judicial elections.  According to an Associated Press report on Ohio.com, judicial candidates may now make public their political party affiliations.  The rule change is part of a new Code of Judicial Conduct going into effect March 1, 2009.  There had been a ban in place on such direct advertising of party affiliation since 1995, although the rule had not been enforced since it was challenged in 2004.

Why make the change? “Ohio Supreme Court assistant administrator Rick Dove says the rule is being changed because candidates were finding ways around it. Plus, he says the court wanted to make the relationship between judicial candidates and political parties more transparent.”

This is yet another sign that judicial elections are becoming more like elections for other public offices, despite the unique role judges play in our government.  If judges really are different, shouldn’t we treat them differently from the get-go, including how they get to be judges?

Thanks to Gavel Grab for alerting us to this news from Ohio: now folks can contribute more to judicial campaigns in Ohio.  According to the DispatchPolitics, “Candidates for judicial posts in Ohio will be able to collect 15 percent more from virtually all types of contributors next year under new limits approved this week by the Ohio Supreme Court.”  The news article and Gavel Grab’s post have a chart showing the new contribution limits.

The increase follows the mandatory four year review of contribution limits.  Asked why the increase was made, a spokesman for the Ohio Supreme Court “said the justices opted for the increases so ‘candidates’ buying power stays in pace with inflation.’”  Another sign of how important money is in judicial elections.

Joseph Russo, currently a Common Please Court judge in Ohio and candidate for the Ohio Supreme Court, is worried about the perceptions created when judicial candidates take large contributions from parties that later appear before them in court.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that Russo has proposed a mandatory recusal process for judges and justices in cases involving campaign donors.

Under Russo’s proposal, a Supreme Court justice would be required to recuse in a case involving an entity that donated more than $10,000 in the aggregate to his or her campaigns during the past seven years.  Lower court judges would be subject to a similar process, though the dollar amounts triggering recusal would be lower.  Russo explained his reasoning in making the proposal:

‘The concern I have is that groups of people giving you money, a law firm or a corporation, and now they want to come before you in court to hear their case. . . .  My plan would immediately wipe out that perception about justices voting with the money.’

Russo’s opponent, incumbent incumbent Justice Maureen O’Connor,  opposes the measure, and notes that although other states have considered similar mandatory recusal programs, none has adopted one.  Read more about the campaign and the candidates on Gavel Grab.

O’Connor’s observation raises an interesting question.  If recusal is not the solution, maybe there’s a better way to deal with the problem of campaign contributions and the perceptions they create.  We think the answer is getting judges out of the fundraising business altogether by adopting a Merit Selection system for the appellate courts.