judgesonmerit.org

The Columbus Dispatch reports that a doctor believes the Ohio Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal in a malpractice case against him due to political considerations related to campaign contributions. Dr. John Cox, a neuro-radiologist, was sued for allegedly missing a stroke diagnosis. The original suit was brought against Cox and other doctors at the hospital. The Allen County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the suit, but the 3rd District Court of Appeals reinstated the case against Cox alone. Although the Supreme Court initially agreed to hear the appeal, the case was thrown out in December.

Dr. Cox’s belief of impropriety is based on support given to the campaign of then-Chief Justice Eric Brown by the lawyer on the other side of the case.  Brown was involved in an unsuccessful campaign to maintain his position as chief justice. Dennis P. Mulvihill, the lawyer on the other side of this case, and his group contributed about $400,000 in an attempt to see Brown elected and two Republican justices defeated. Those two justices stepped down from the case, but Brown and the two judges he picked to temporarily replace them were part of the majority that decided to throw out the case.

Clearly, partisan elections and the campaign contributions that accompany them affect people’s perception of the courts. Whether his belief is right or wrong, Dr. Cox feels that he was denied fair and impartial justice: “‘I thought we had a system of justice here,’ Cox said this week. ‘Now we don’t have a verdict and we have to go to trial. It looks like political maneuvering.”

The court system as a whole is damaged when individuals walk away from their experiences with the law believing that justice is for sale. The best way to avoid the negative perceptions created by the role of money in the electoral process is to get judges out of the fundraising business by switching to Merit Selection.

This is a big judicial election year for Ohio, and trouble is brewing already. Like Pennsylvania, Ohio limits the political and fundraising activities of judicial candidates.  But the Columbus Dispatch reports that the candidates for  Chief Justice are trading allegations of unethical campaign conduct.

The Republican Party alleges that Chief Justice Eric Brown improperly solicited campaign contributions.  The Democratic Party alleges that Brown’s challenger Justice Maureen O’Connor, improperly endorsed another judicial candidate.  The Democratic Party also alleges that another sitting Justice, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, a Republican up for re-election, also violated the rule against endorsing other candidates.

Aren’t we getting tired of these stories?  These allegations, coupled with expensive elections funded by lawyers, law firms and organizations that frequently litigate in the state courts, makes one wonder why states continue to elect judges.  It seems that money problems and political entanglements are the  inevitable partners of judicial elections.

We need a system that gets judges out of the fundraising business and limits partisan political activity.  Merit Selection is such a system.

Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer spoke out strongly against the poisonous influence of money in judicial elections during a recent address to the Columbus Metropolitan Club.  Dispatch Politics, a division of the Columbus Dispatch, reports that Chief Justice Moyer urged: “‘We must reduce the role of fundraising in judicial campaigns . . . It’s corrosive.’”

He further noted that the money problem undermines confidence in the judiciary and courts across the board, noting that “polls have shown that most people — and even many judges — believe that rulings are influenced by campaign contributions.” This is not new information, but when the Chief Justice takes note of this data, people should listen carefully.

Chief Justice Moyer promoted a Merit Selection system in which the Governor selects a candidate from a field of three recommended by a nominating commission.  Judges selected this way would stand in uncontested retention elections.

We hope that people in Ohio — and Pennsylvania — will heed Chief Justice Moyer’s call for reform.

In a letter to the Columbus Dispatch, an Ohio lawyer describes his disillusionment with the current system of electing judges and his belief in the need for serious reform:

[T]he election of judges does not serve our state, citizenry or the judicial process. I have no concern as to the political affiliation of judges if they apply the law as it is codified or legislated. As a practicing lawyer, I want a judge who is not only fair and impartial, but who is more intelligent than I am, who is more tempered than I am and who will work as hard as I do.

The writer emphasizes the need for qualified, experienced, indepedent jurists and explains why elections are not the best way to find them.  He praises Merit Selection as the answer: “A bipartisan merit-selection process is the only answer to address the critical need for judicial competency.”