Ohio is one of seven states where this occurs selects state Supreme Court justices on a partisan basis – which could impact voters and campaign finance dollars. This is a novel change in which Ohio Republican lawmakers will add party labels to races starting in 2022.
But partisan elections “are difficult for judges,” said Michael Milov-Cordoba, general counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
“Legislators are changing the types of elections… to gain a political advantage one way or another,” he said. “All state courts are adjudicating more significant domestic issues than they have in the past.”
Fourteen states operate nonpartisan elections for state supreme court elections, and another 14 operate what’s called “merit selection,” a type of job application process in which candidates apply for an open position in a state’s judicial system, commission The nominating committee reviews applications and, according to The Brennan Center, makes recommendations to the governor or other appointing entity.
The remaining states operate gubernatorial or legislative nominations or a hybrid selection process. In 2021, Ohio switched from nonpartisan to partisan Supreme Court elections.
Another thing that has changed with the novel partisanship in the race is money.
“Over the last few cycles, we have seen an unprecedented amount of outside spending in judicial candidate races,” Milov-Cordoba said.
Approximately 9% of donations to six Ohio Supreme Court nominees totaling more than $365,000 as of Sept. 19, they came from outside Ohio, according to 2023 and 2024 campaign contributions posted on the Ohio Secretary of State’s website.
Incumbent Democratic Judge Michael P. Donnelly was challenged by Republican Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Megan Shanahan.
Incumbent Republican Judge Joseph Deters, who has decided not to run for his current position, prefers instead to run against incumbent Democratic Judge Melody Stewart.
Democratic candidate Lisa Forbes of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and Republican candidate Dan Hawkins of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas are vying for Deters’ open seat.
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.
Democratic candidates received almost $272,000 in out-of-Ohio contributions, and Republican Party candidates received more than $93,000 in out-of-state contributions as of September 19.
As of September 19, Deters received the most campaign contributions at over $909,000, while Stewart received the least at over $480,000. About 4% of Deters’ campaign donations came from out of state, and almost half came from Florida.
As of Sept. 19, Hawkins had received approximately $27,400 in out-of-state donations and Shanahan had received approximately $21,200 in out-of-Ohio donations. Both received the most out-of-state money from Washington
Donnelly received approximately $98,400 in donations from outside Ohio, representing approximately 16% of his total donations as of September 19. 16% of Forbes’ campaign contributions also came from outside Ohio, totaling about $97,300. About 15% of Stewart’s donations (about $76,100) came from outside Ohio. All three Democrats received the most out-of-state donations from New York.
The change in spending on judicial races has been significant over the past 15 to 20 years, said Phillip Marcin, a professor of instruction at the Bliss Institute for Applied Policy at the University of Akron.
“The outside groups didn’t spend a lot of money, to the point where it was just minor things,” Marcin said.
But now that there has been an “explosion of spending” and partisan labels have been added to the races, Martin said judicial races are starting to look more like “political” races like legislative or congressional races.
Campaign rules for judicial candidates are different, for example, candidates cannot knowingly make false statements about other candidates in television ads, and typically ads paid for by judicial campaigns focus on their candidate’s characteristics and qualifications.
However, changing elections to account for partisan affiliation can influence voters without any effort on the part of the candidates.
Martin said the ongoing debate over whether political parties should be affiliated with judicial candidates has raised two arguments: Proponents of partisan elections (and increased spending on these races) argue that if voters show up specifically to vote for others candidates, they also vote more often in court elections. This reduces the percentage of people who vote at the top of the list, but ignores the races and problems associated with fewer votes.
“(Partisan election supporters say) the more campaign spending is spent in judicial races, the more write-offs go down,” Marcin said.
During the 2020 election, more than a million voting Ohioans did not vote for a state Supreme Court justice.
Opponents of partisanship, including former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, say having to answer to a political party can change judges’ behavior.
“The traditional notion of a judge is that he should be neutral and impartial,” Marcin said.
However, studies have shown that if you are forced to participate in guerrilla donation campaigns, Martin may feel that they are “expected to rule in line with the groups you received money from,” for example by increasing sentences to appear “tougher against crime.” “
“There is evidence that judges are changing their behavior to increase their chances in elections,” Marcin said. “…This should be incredibly terrifying for everyone.”
This could be a problem because of the impact that judicial races have on the long-term future of not only the state, but also the country as a whole.
“There used to be a lot of issues that were more federal in nature, but on some of them the U.S. Supreme Court said we’re not really going to deal with them anymore. state,” said Marcin.
Some of these issues include redistricting and abortion – both of which were sent back to the states in the Dobbs decision – both of which are hot-button issues in Ohio in 2023’s Issue 1, which enshrined reproductive rights in the Ohio Constitution, and in this year’s Issue 1, which constitutionalization of redistributive reform is sought.
The Ohio Supreme Court has also already been asked to rule on various issues related to the Reproductive Rights Amendment and state laws regulating abortion, along with redistricting maps from the Ohio Redistricting Commission and a summary of redistricting reform proposals.
“Now states have a much greater influence on these issues, which will affect thousands, hundreds of thousands of people,” Marcin said.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
