LAHAINA, HAWAII — “Almost one in eight federal judgeships is vacant in the country and legal scholars warn that the increasingly politicized confirmation process threatens the administration of justice across the nation.

Democrats and Obama administration officials accuse the Republican minority in the Senate of systematically opposing the president’s nominees to prevent him from putting his stamp on a judiciary that, Democrats say, moved to the right under President George W. Bush.

Republicans and conservative analysts say the stalled pace of ‘replenishment’ is part payback for congressional Democrats’ efforts to scuttle some Bush nominees and part indifference on the part of President Obama, who they say has been slow to nominate judges.” Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times.

CINCINNATI — “The party affiliation of Ohio judicial candidates will not appear next to their names on the ballot this fall.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that she has not seen enough evidence to conclude Ohio’s ban on party labels in judicial races is unconstitutional, which means voters still won’t see a “Republican” or “Democrat” designation alongside candidates’ names.

Ohio’s rules recently came under fire after a federal appeals court threw out similar rules in Kentucky. Ohio changed its rules after that decision, but still banned party designations on the ballot.” Dan Horn, Cincinnati Enquirer.

Read the whole story

Federal judge balks at easing Ohio’s judicial ballot rules

Darrel Rowland, The Columbus Dispatch.

COLUMBUS — “Candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court have spent nearly $30 million on their campaigns during the past decade, the second-highest total in the country, authors of a national study concluded.

Spending on Ohio Supreme Court races from 2000 to 2009 was second only to Alabama, according to three groups that studied campaign contributions to state supreme court candidates for a report released today.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, the Justice at Stake Campaign and the National Institute on Money in State Politics are critical of the role of money in state court campaigns, saying it undermines public confidence in the impartiality of court rulings.” James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch.

Read the whole story

Ohio ranks 2nd nationally in state Supreme Court campaign spending

William Hershey, Dayton Daily News.

Report Asks: Is Justice for Sale?

Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.

COLUMBUS — “A new Ohio Supreme Court ruling says it’s ok for judicial candidates to identify themselves with their party affiliations in advertising materials when they run for general elections.

‘This actually makes Judicial candidates more honest’ said Catherine Turcer of the watchdog group Ohio Citizen Action. ‘They don’t have to speak in codes, they can be very clear.” Jo Ingles, Statehouse News.

Ohio Supreme Court

COLUMBUS — “For the first time, Ohio judicial candidates can wear a party label for the general election.

Changes to the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct rolled out late yesterday by the Ohio Supreme Court ended a ban on those running for slots on the bench from advertising or even identifying their political affiliation after a primary election.

The high court also softened rules on how judicial candidates can seek campaign money, although justices left intact a prohibition on directly asking for or receiving contributions.” Darrel Rowland, The Columbus Dispatch.

Read the whole story

Judicial candidates free to advertise their political affiliations

Reginald Fields, Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Ohio Supreme Court: Judicial candidates can disclose their parties

William Hershey, Dayton Daily News.

COLUMBUS –”Ohio Supreme Court justices spent much of today pondering this question: How political is too political?

The court’s seven justices huddled over a federal court ruling in July that struck down Kentucky’s rules that limited political activity by judges. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Kentucky rules that were similar to restrictions in Ohio, including bans on letting judges announce their party affiliations and raise money directly. The Sixth Circuit covers Ohio, so the state’s rules appear to be in jeopardy.

Later in July, a group of liberal interests filed suit to have Ohio’s rules overturned in time for the November election. Three Ohio Supreme Court seats, including chief justice, will be on the ballot. Two of the races are contested.” James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch.

Read the whole blog

COLUMBUS — “A lawsuit filed in federal court in Columbus (“Judicial politics may get clearer,” Dispatch article, July 29) seeks to require that Ohio judicial candidates’ political affiliations appear on the November ballot and seeks to allow judicial candidates to personally solicit campaign contributions. Ohio law and the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct currently prohibit these, to minimize the role of partisan politics in judicial elections.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Ohio, recently struck down similar prohibitions in Kentucky, stating: “While political identification may be an unhelpful way to pick judges, it assuredly beats other grounds, such as the all-too-familiar formula of running candidates with familiar or popular last names. In that respect this informational ban increases the likelihood that one of the least relevant grounds for judicial selection — the fortuity of one’s surname — is all that the voters will have to go on.”

Research shows the majority of voters say they lack information about judicial candidates, and few would agree that voting for a candidate with a popular last name is a good way to select our judiciary. However, further politicizing judicial races exacerbates the problem by increasing the likelihood judges will be selected for reasons having little or nothing to do with their judicial qualifications.” Meg Flack, President League of Women Voters of Ohio

Read the whole story

COLUMBUS — “Judicial candidates in Ohio will appear on the ballot as Democrats and Republicans this November and will be able to speak more freely on political issues if a coalition of liberal interests prevails in a court case filed yesterday.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Ohio Democratic Party and three candidates for judicial offices petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to strike down Ohio’s restrictions against judges identifying themselves by party affiliation or personally raising campaign cash.

Two weeks ago, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – which encompasses Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee – struck down Kentucky’s restrictions on judicial politicking.” James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch.

Read the whole story

KENTUCKY — “A July 13 decision by the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals could eventually offer Ohioans an opening to reconsider how they’ve picked judges for almost 160 years — in elections.

In 1938 and 1987, voters decisively rejected merit-selection plans for Ohio’s Supreme Court and appellate courts. In merit selection, the governor appoints judges from a list submitted by screeners. The appointed judge periodically runs for “retention,” based on his or her judicial performance. Candidates for judgeships don’t run against each other…. The constitutional issues flagged by the federal Appeals Court in the Kentucky case indicate that Ohio may someday find itself facing the same fork in the same road: Either the state gives its judicial candidates free rein — with, yes, a risk of wild electioneering — or the state finds a better way of choosing judges than the method it uses today.” Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Read the whole editorial

A better way to choose Judges in Ohio?

Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.

COLUMBUS — “With big-spending judicial races a possibility this year, four candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court have taken a clean-campaign pledge proposed by the Ohio State Bar Association….

Signing the pledge were two candidates for chief justice, recently appointed Chief Justice Eric Brown, a Democrat, and Justice Maureen O’Connor, a Republican; and  Republican Justice Judith Lanzinger and appellate Judge Mary Jane Trapp, a Democrat, according to a Toledo Blade article. Ohio has seen some of the nation’s most expensive judicial elections.

The “clean campaign agreement,” according to the OSBA [Ohio State Bar Association], asked candidates  to take personal responsibility for the content of advertisements or statements that they or their authorized committee’s issue. The pledge also asked candidates to publicly disavow ads from other sources that impugn the integrity of the judicial system or the integrity of a candidate for Supreme Court.” Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.

Read the whole story

COLUMBUS — “The four candidates running for contested seats on the Ohio Supreme Court have signed the Ohio State Bar Association’s “clean campaign agreement,” the association announced on Tuesday, July 20….

The pledge asks candidates to publicly disavow ads from other sources that “impugn the integrity of the judicial system or the integrity of a candidate for Supreme Court,” a press release said.

“Our goal is to encourage campaigns for this state’s highest court that are based on credentials, temperament and experience and that demonstrate the dignity and respect the office deserves,” OSBA President Carmen Roberto said in the release.” William Hershey, Dayton Daily News.

Read the whole blog.

Federal court ruling will change the way judges campaign, raise money

“Ohio is likely to change the rules by which its judicial election campaigns are conducted, as the result of a federal appeals-court ruling. The ruling also is likely to re-energize the longstanding debate in Ohio over merit selection of judges.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week struck down Kentucky’s rules barring judicial candidates from soliciting campaign funds or mentioning their party affiliations. The appeals court also instructed the district court from which the case originated to more narrowly consider other limits on judicial speech.

Because Ohio has restrictions similar to Kentucky’s, the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct most likely will have to be rewritten to conform with the court’s ruling. The 6th Circuit covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.” The Columbus Dispatch.

Read the whole editorial

COLUMBUS — “Ohio has kooky rules for electing the seven members to its highest court. Candidates are nominated in partisan primaries and then everybody is supposed to forget O’Connor is a Republican and Brown is a Democrat. Their party affiliations are left off the general-election ballot, and the candidates are prohibited from mentioning their party allegiance unless asked by a voter.

The system is supposed to cast an apolitical hue on the court, except that, unlike many voters, chambers of commerce know which candidates are Republicans and labor unions know which ones are Democrats, and they pour unseemly amounts of money into campaigns to elect them.

Currently, all members of the Supreme Court except Brown are Republicans, and far more often than not, they see the law through the same eyes as their chamber of commerce benefactors. When Democrats controlled the court, they mostly looked through union eyes.” Joe Hallett, The Columbus Dispatch.

Read the whole editorial

Kentucky’s limits on party affiliation struck down; Ohio has similar rules

Kentucky — “A federal court ruling yesterday could loosen some restrictions that prevent Ohio judicial candidates from speaking freely about their party affiliations and political views.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Kentucky’s rules barring judicial candidates from mentioning their party affiliation or personally soliciting campaign funds. The federal court punted on whether candidates for judgeships may express opinions on issues, leaving the question for a lower court to decide.

Ohio has similar restrictions on all three points….The party-affiliation rule has a wobbly history in Ohio. In December 2008, the Supreme Court announced that it was lifting restrictions on party labels, but it reinstated the gag order the next month.” James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch.

Read the whole story

WASHINGTON DC — “It’s not every day that judicial recusal gets a lot of attention. But that has changed with a swirl of questions raised over the interests of judges in a position to rule on the Obama administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Alliance for Justice advocacy group has issued a report spotlighting the past work affiliations and recent investments of judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, entitled ‘Judicial Gusher: The Fifth Circuit’s Ties to Oil.’

Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, said her group was ‘alarmed by clear evidence that many judges in the Fifth Circuit are marinating in a pervasive oil culture, raising legitimate questions about potential bias, but also threatening to do great damage to the public’s perception of the courts as a haven of fair and impartial justice,’ according to a National Law Journal article.” Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.

COLUMBUS — “The Ohio Supreme Court chief justice and his opponent in the November election now are both the targets of disciplinary complaints alleging that they violated judicial-ethics rules in their campaigns for office.

Chief Justice Eric Brown, whom Gov. Ted Strickland appointed in April, is accused of personally soliciting money for his campaign in violation of a judicial-conduct rule.

Justice Maureen O’Connor, a Republican challenging Brown in the race for chief justice, is accused of endorsing another judicial candidate despite a rule barring political endorsements by judges.” James Nash, The Columbus Dispatch.

Read the whole story

WASHINGTON DC — In a remarkable speech that received far too little attention, former Supreme Court Justice David Souter took direct aim at the conservatives’ favorite theory of judging. At issue is ‘originalism,’ an approach to reading the Constitution whose seeming precision has given conservatives a polemical advantage over the liberals’ ‘living Constitution’ idea that appears to let judges say our founding document means whatever they want it to mean. Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s leading orginalist, summarized his opponents’ attitude toward the Constitution with four words: ‘You know, it morphs,’” E.J Dionne, The Columbus Dispatch.

Read the whole story