Democrats sue to get labels on judicial ballots

Jul 29, 2010 — The Blade

Jim Provance

Jul. 29, 2010 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- COLUMBUS -- Ohio Democrats Wednesday sued to overturn a nearly 100-year-old state law that has judicial candidates running in partisan primaries but appearing without party labels on general election ballots.

They also urged U.S. District Court in Columbus to strike down court rules of conduct that prevent judicial candidates from directly soliciting campaign funds and advertising their partisan ties.

Citing candidates' right to free speech, the suit seeks an injunction by Aug. 24 to affect the printing of ballots for the Nov. 2 election. Voters may begin casting absentee ballots for that election as early as Sept. 28.

"Ohio is the only state in the union that has judges running in partisan primaries and then tries to make the general election non-partisan," said Al Gerhardstein, the Cincinnati attorney who filed the suit.

"The problem with that is my clients will be on the ballot in November because they won a primary," he said. "They want to be able to tell supporters, 'I'm the man or woman you voted for in the primary,' but now, when voters look at the ballot, they can't tell. Hiding party affiliation serves no governmental purpose."

The Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down as unconstitutional Kentucky court rules similar to Ohio's.

Those rules bar judicial candidates from soliciting contributions themselves, as opposed to indirectly through a campaign committee, and openly advertising their party affiliations.

The 6th Circuit case, however, said nothing about ballot identification.

Nancy Brown, judicial specialist for the League of Women Voters of Ohio, said she wasn't surprised by the lawsuit, given the 6th Circuit decision.

"But I'm afraid this is going to be one further step in politicizing judicial elections," she said. "As we go down this route, it further undermines the difference between the judiciary and the executive and legislative branches....If the courts move in this direction, it makes it all the more important that Ohio think seriously about moving to a better system. Most states do not elect judges."

Last year, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted changes to its canons governing judicial campaigns, including the elimination of the prohibition against candidates using their party affiliation in ads.

But the court, voting 5-2, soon reversed itself and reinstated the rule. Justices Judith Lanzinger and Paul Pfeifer dissented, citing a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Minnesota law restricting what judicial candidates could say on the campaign stump.

In 2006 and 2008, when Democrats made gains in nearly every other statewide vote, state Supreme Court elections, appearing on the ballot without party identification, bucked the trend. Democrats have not won a high court election since 2000 and, until Gov. Ted Strickland appointed Eric Brown chief justice in April, the court was all-Republican.

"Ohio voters have a right to know the political party that a judicial candidate is affiliated with," said state Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern. "The more information voters have, the better."

The Ohio Republican Party declined to comment when contacted Wednesday.

In addition to the state Democratic Party, the plaintiffs in the suit include the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees-Council 8, a labor union representing some 50,000 government workers in Ohio, and three judicial candidates in Cuyahoga and Hamilton counties, two of whom are sitting judges.

Last week, all four candidates for two contested seats on the state Supreme Court said they would continue to honor Ohio's fund-raising rule. But the lawsuit could affect two pending disciplinary complaints.

The state Republican Party has accused Chief Justice Brown of violating one of the canons by making phone calls to encourage attendance at a fund-raiser.

Democrats, meanwhile, have accused Republican Justices Maureen O'Connor and Justice Lanzinger of violating another rule by allegedly endorsing one another in their respective races.

Justice O'Connor is running for chief justice. Justice Lanzinger is seeking re-election opposite Mary Jane Trapp, a Warren-based appellate judge and Democrat.

Contact Jim Provance at:

jprovance@theblade.com

or 614-221-0496.

Newstex ID: KRTB-0203-47426025