Events Calendar
In This Section
Federal court seeks info in Ohio lethal injection case
Bedford, North Olmsted car dealers clash over 'Automile'
Ohio attorney general sues credit agencies for public pensions
Home of Ohioan accused of drowning wife to be sold
Teen gets life in killing of woman who took him in
In 17 Ohio counties, 'storms' must be snowier
Ohio man pleads guilty in motorcycle club case
Governor calls for domestic violence reforms
Most Read Stories
Man found dead in North Akron home is identified
NFL star Chris Spielman's wife loses cancer battle
Dad accused of forcing son into field, killing him
Poor machine maintenance blamed for fire at Akron business
Coventry man killed in crash at I-77 ramp
Man allegedly paid teens to spit in his face
College student mistaken for deer, shot to death
Indians add 7 players to 40-man roster
Body with gunshot wounds found in Canton Township creek
Blogs:
Pets:
Cat-loving chihuahua suckles seven abandoned kittens
The Heldenfiles:
Friday Night Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
The proposed new LeBron mural doesn't do it for me
Akron Zips:
Two blowouts, one night
Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster
Cleveland Browns:
Hey, somebody's gotta stick up for the Browns
Kent State Sports:
Singletary update
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs at Indiana Pacers – Here’s to LBJ and Free Throws
Buckeye Blogging:
OSU – Michigan college football rivals meet in Baghdad
Varsity Letters:
Bowling season starts today
All Da King's Men:
Headed For Disaster
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Muslim McCarthyism & Death Prayers
Akron Law Café:
Federal Judge Declares DOMA Unconstitutional
See Jane Style:
Vintage Chic
Car Chase:
TIME TO GET YOUR COLLECTOR CARS WINTERIZED
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Silverdome Potentially SOLD!
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Norma asks if Barkitecture is still at Stan Hywet.
Sound Check:
Steely Dan Plays "The Royal Scam" at E.J. Thomas Hall
HRLite House:
Colloquium at University of Akron
Akron Gamer:
Nintendo's Mario endures even as games come and go
By JoAnne Viviano
Associated Press
POSTED: 04:03 p.m. EDT, Jun 10, 2009
COLUMBUS: Ohio's chief justice will call for new policy at the state's highest court after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that elected judges must not participate in cases that involve large contributors to their election campaigns.
The ruling gives Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer an opportunity to seek a state policy that would allow parties to request a justice be removed from a case if there's an appearance of bias based on campaign donations.
"This clearly offers an opportunity to reinvigorate the discussion of judicial reform in Ohio," court spokesman Chris Davey said on Moyer's behalf.
Moyer plans to address the issue with his fellow state Supreme Court justices, Davey said. He also plans to hold a conference later this year to discuss judicial policies
While parties to cases can petition to have Ohio trial and appellate judges removed from cases, no such process is in place at the state Supreme Court level, Davey said. Individual justices decide themselves whether they should take part.
Conduct codes already tell Ohio judges that they must disqualify themselves from cases in which their impartiality may be reasonably questioned, said 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals Judge Colleen Conway Cooney,
"Judges are always under this ethical rule whether someone brings it to their attention or not," said Cooney, who co-chairs the Ethics and Professionalism Committee of the Ohio Judicial Conference.
However, judges are put in a tough spot at election time because it is so expensive to get out a campaign message, she said.
Since 2000, the seven justices now on the all-Republican Ohio Supreme Court have raised from about $80,000 by Justice Paul Pfeifer for the 2004 election to about $1.9 million by Justice Evelyn Stratton for the 2002 election, according to an analysis by the public watchdog group Ohio Citizen Action. The top industries from which donations came were insurance, the legal profession, health and manufacturing.
A 2006 New York Times report showed that, over 12 years, justices on the Ohio Supreme Court rarely removed themselves from cases involving their campaign contributors and on average decided in their favor 70 percent of the time.
Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling will allow Ohio lawyers to take a look at contributions given by groups, such as insurance companies or unregulated political groups, and raise questions, said Gary Leppla, president of the Ohio State Bar Association.
"Lawyers will take this and look at it hard and see if they can apply it to another set of facts," he said. "At least now there's language out there that allows a party, through their lawyer, to raise the issue."
Catherine Turcer, who directs Ohio Citizen Action's Money in Politics Project, called on Moyer Wednesday to create a study committee to examine the influence of issue advertising on judicial elections in Ohio.
For example, the Partnership for Ohio's Future, an affiliate of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, spent nearly $1.3 million on ads supporting two Supreme Court justices in 2006, Turcer said. In 2008, a Chamber affiliate spent just less than $1 million.
She said Ohio has aired more ads in state Supreme Court races since 2000 than any other state.
"It really highlights all the money that swirls around these judicial campaigns," she said.
COLUMBUS: Ohio's chief justice will call for new policy at the state's highest court after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that elected judges must not participate in cases that involve large contributors to their election campaigns.
The ruling gives Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer an opportunity to seek a state policy that would allow parties to request a justice be removed from a case if there's an appearance of bias based on campaign donations.
"This clearly offers an opportunity to reinvigorate the discussion of judicial reform in Ohio," court spokesman Chris Davey said on Moyer's behalf.
Moyer plans to address the issue with his fellow state Supreme Court justices, Davey said. He also plans to hold a conference later this year to discuss judicial policies
While parties to cases can petition to have Ohio trial and appellate judges removed from cases, no such process is in place at the state Supreme Court level, Davey said. Individual justices decide themselves whether they should take part.
Conduct codes already tell Ohio judges that they must disqualify themselves from cases in which their impartiality may be reasonably questioned, said 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals Judge Colleen Conway Cooney,
"Judges are always under this ethical rule whether someone brings it to their attention or not," said Cooney, who co-chairs the Ethics and Professionalism Committee of the Ohio Judicial Conference.
However, judges are put in a tough spot at election time because it is so expensive to get out a campaign message, she said.
Since 2000, the seven justices now on the all-Republican Ohio Supreme Court have raised from about $80,000 by Justice Paul Pfeifer for the 2004 election to about $1.9 million by Justice Evelyn Stratton for the 2002 election, according to an analysis by the public watchdog group Ohio Citizen Action. The top industries from which donations came were insurance, the legal profession, health and manufacturing.
A 2006 New York Times report showed that, over 12 years, justices on the Ohio Supreme Court rarely removed themselves from cases involving their campaign contributors and on average decided in their favor 70 percent of the time.
Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling will allow Ohio lawyers to take a look at contributions given by groups, such as insurance companies or unregulated political groups, and raise questions, said Gary Leppla, president of the Ohio State Bar Association.
"Lawyers will take this and look at it hard and see if they can apply it to another set of facts," he said. "At least now there's language out there that allows a party, through their lawyer, to raise the issue."
Catherine Turcer, who directs Ohio Citizen Action's Money in Politics Project, called on Moyer Wednesday to create a study committee to examine the influence of issue advertising on judicial elections in Ohio.
For example, the Partnership for Ohio's Future, an affiliate of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, spent nearly $1.3 million on ads supporting two Supreme Court justices in 2006, Turcer said. In 2008, a Chamber affiliate spent just less than $1 million.
She said Ohio has aired more ads in state Supreme Court races since 2000 than any other state.
"It really highlights all the money that swirls around these judicial campaigns," she said.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
