There must be a better way  to pick judges

8:06 PM Tuesday, November 17, 2009

If you ever think about judges, it’s probably at election time when you’re asked to vote for some. Or maybe if you go to court for a ticket or are called for jury duty.

There are, however, some people who are thinking about them a lot these days — and specifically about how Ohio chooses its seven-member Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Tom Moyer, the Ohio League of Women Voters and the Ohio State Bar Association believe there has to be a better way to choose the people who decide what the state constitution and Ohio’s laws really mean.

(This court’s role is important, to name a few for instances, in fights about how to fund schools; whether jury awards for damages can be limited; and, to cite a recent example, whether thousands of slot machines can be put at race tracks.)

Chief Justice Moyer, the bar association and the League are having a conference Nov. 19 and Nov. 20, and the headliner is former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

She opposes the practice of judges raising goo-gobs of money, then deciding cases that cost, save or beget the interest groups that funded their campaigns tons of money.

Ohio has been down this path before, in 1987. Voters overwhelmingly rejected a “merit selection” plan for choosing judges. The political parties were against the idea, as were plenty of interest groups.

Voters, the thinking goes, didn’t want anyone taking away their right to choose judges, even though they readily confess they frequently don’t know much about these candidates.

Proponents think opposition may have lessened in the intervening two decades. Because supreme court contests have become so expensive, the interest groups are getting tired of shelling out money to elect “their” people.

The bar association’s research shows that, during the five occasions since 2000 that Supreme Court races were on the ballot, Ohioans have been pelted by more than $20 million in television ads.

That makes us possibly the most insulted people in the country. The ads are often annoyingly overdone and under truthful.

The conference organizers are offering up two approaches: public financing of judicial elections or an appointive process that requires justices to run to keep their seat after they’ve served a number of years.

Either option would substantially reduce the role of money.

Americans like to think of their court system as having integrity. Even though plenty of people who go to court come away disappointed (somebody has to lose), the widespread perception is that judges and juries do a pretty good job at sorting out people’s disagreements.

However, when money plays such a powerful role in the election of very low-profile people who have the final word on so many issues, public confidence is at risk.

The reformers want to capture the moment, not blow it.

So they’re committed to working with interest groups and the politicians to craft something good and salable.

Then they say there will have to be an aggressive public education campaign to assure voters that supporting a change would improve a tarnished system.

Let the work and the education both begin.

— Cox News Service

Share this article