Although all six candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court were invited to speak at a recent forum jointly hosted by the City Club of Cleveland and the Ohio State Debate Commission, only the Democratic candidates showed up.
Three Democratic candidates – incumbent Judge Michael Donnelly, incumbent Judge Melody Stewart and Judge Lisa Forbes – spoke at the forum Tuesday. ABOUThio State House Bureau Chief Karen Kasler moderated the forum.
Republican Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Megan Shanahan, Republican Judge Joseph Deters and Republican Judge Dan Hawkins did not appear at the forum.
The three Supreme Court races are Donnelly v. Shanahan, Stewart v. Deters, and Forbes v. Hawkins. Deters is not running for his current seat and is instead running against Stewart for the full six-year term. Hawkins and Forbes are vying for Deters’ vacant seat, and his term expires on December 31, 2026.
The Ohio Supreme Court currently has a Republican majority of 4 to 3. This election could either reverse the Court’s fortunes, with Democrats or Republicans increasing their numbers.
Donnelly and Stewart were elected to the Ohio Supreme Court in 2018. They are Forbes’ first nominee for the position Supreme Court of Ohio.
“I’m running because I want to make every effort to ensure that the Supreme Court is a bulwark that protects our democracy, the rule of law and your rights,” he told Forbes. “I approached the case because I am concerned about some of the rulings. “I am concerned about the way the Court has the power to define words and interpret laws that may be more outcome-oriented than consistent with the law or the intent behind the law.”
Donnelly and Stewart didn’t miss the opportunity to highlight their opponents’ absences.
“I am begging (Deters) to just show up with me anywhere — on a street corner, at a candidate forum, in a newsroom, wherever, and just talk through the substance of our candidacies,” Stewart said.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Deters to the Ohio Supreme Court in January 2023, despite having no prior judicial experience.
Donnelly also noted his opponent’s absence when discussing the bond issue and The 2022 DuBose case, in which he wrote a concurring opinion.
“If someone poses a threat to public safety, they should be questioned and held without bail,” he said. “Don’t set an astronomical amount that you don’t think they can meet.”
Donnelly noted that his opponent Shanahan was not present to discuss the topic. “I would like to talk to my opponent about this,” he said. “She doesn’t want to talk.”
Stewart, who also served on the Ohio Supreme Court at the time, said the decision was “an absolute signal to vote in the 2022 Supreme Court elections.”
“It was a case of completely misinterpreting the law,” she said.
DuBose and a co-defendant were charged with murder in the armed robbery. During the hearing, the state asked the judge to set bail at $1.5 million. Prosecutors emphasized the nature of the crime, the concerns of the victim’s family members and DuBose’s potential flight risk since his arrest in Las Vegas and return to Ohio to stand trial.
However, DuBose argued that setting bail in excess of what he could financially afford essentially disqualified him from being released on bail and violated the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The appeals court reduced his bail to $500,000 and set non-financial requirements, including surrendering his passport, agreeing to 24-hour house arrest with electronic monitoring and having no contact with the victim’s family.
The state appealed the bail reduction to the Ohio Supreme Court, which sided with the appellate court, pointing to court rules that distinguish between financial and nonfinancial release conditions.
In making this ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court made a distinction between a dollar amount and other bail conditions, such as wearing an ankle monitor. Regardless of financial circumstances, judges can still consider the risk to public safety and order a defendant held without bail.
Nevertheless, Ohio Republican lawmakers have prepared a constitutional amendment for the 2022 elections that would require Ohio judges to consider factors such as public safety, the seriousness of the crime, a person’s criminal history and the likelihood of the person returning to court when determining parole. deposit.
Seventy-eight percent of Ohioans voted for it.
“(Bond and bail) is about allowing for release and ensuring a return to court dates,” Stewart said. “So if you set an unattainable amount, you won’t be allowed to get laid off. “What if someone is dangerous and poses a threat to public safety, why don’t we just hold them pending trial without bail?”
Forbes said the situation was ironic.
“People who recognize that dangerous criminals should under no circumstances be allowed pre-trial release, as Judge Stewart and Judge Donnelly have just said, are characterized as being soft on crime,” she said. “It is a crime-tough and community-protective assessment that under no circumstances can you be released before trial.”
A recent 4-3 majority ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court Boneless chicken wings may contain bones also appeared during Tuesday’s forum.
“The word boneless was legally defined to mean a style of cooking and meant that you should expect to see bones if something is labeled boneless, and I think that’s concerning,” Forbes said. “If I get elected to the Supreme Court and I need to define a word, I promise I will use a dictionary.”
Guerrilla racing
The 2021 bill added party labels to Ohio Supreme Court races that were previously nonpartisan. On Tuesday, all three Democrats opposed the decision.
“If we are going to have an elected justice, it should be nonpartisan,” Donnelly said. “I would like us to move towards some kind of retention system where we don’t have to compete with each other and raise money.[…]I do not pledge to any political party.”
Stewart agreed, saying partisan labels further politicize the Supreme Court.
Forbes said this gives the idea that judges are political actors.
“What I’m most concerned about is that it creates the impression that perhaps party affiliation will influence the outcome of the case, which undermines public confidence in the courts as a whole, which is very worrying,” she added. he said.
All three Democrats also disagreed with legislating from the bench.
“The law is the law,” Donnelly said.
Forbes said her job is to apply the law, not create fresh ones.
“Seat-bench legislation means creating new laws to achieve a specific result,” she said.
Stewart said it’s up to her to determine what the law is, not what it should be.
“There are times when we have to make decisions and vote on rulings based on what the law says, but we hold our noses,” she said.
Follow the OCJ reporter Megan Henry on X
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
