For Ohio Supreme Court: William O'Neill and Ben Espy

When Ohio Supreme Court Justice Terrence O'Donnell came in for an interview with the editorial board a few weeks ago, he joked at one point, "Maybe I'll finally get your endorsement."
Maybe next time. It was close this time, because we have to say that his opponent, 11th District appeals court Judge William O'Neill of Chargin Falls is running what might best be described as a quixotic campaign. He says he'll print about a million fliers on an old press he bought, and that's all the advertising he'll do. He's financing his own campaign.
A noble gesture perhaps, but not a very realistic one in a state where other judicial candidates are accepting and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even with such a ballot-bankable name as O'Neill, that's no way for a relatively unknown challeger to run against a well-financed incumbent.
O'Donnell, of Rocky River, can claim to be the more serious candidate in this race. Our most serious misgivings surrounded his being in the court majority that found Gov. Bob Taft enjoyed an executive privilege that allowed him to keep secret correspondence that was being sought in connection with the state's pay-to-play scandal.
We were bothered not only by our belief that open, democratic government demands true openness, but by the fact that O'Donnell and other justices who protected Taft's official privacy describe themselves as strict constructionists. Yet, they based their finding of executive privilege not on a single word that can be found in the Ohio Constitution, but on the U.S. Supreme Court's findings in favor of Richard Nixon's executive privilege a generation ago. That, it seems to us, is a reach that almost meets the definition of judicial activism.
Still, we were willing to give O'Donnell the benefit of the doubt, until the Ohio Supreme Court issued its ruling last week on the constitutionality of the state's charter school program. The court ruled that privately operated charter schools are constitutional, even if those schools aren't subject to the same reporting and operational requirements of traditional public schools.
How, we wonder, does a court conclude that unaccountable schools meet the constituton's clear requirement that the state "secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state" without clear and equal standards of accountability?
But our difference with O'Donnell is not in how he ruled in that 4-3 case. It's that he spit the hook. O'Donnell was one of the three dissenting voices, but his dissent was based on his contention that the record was not developed enough to allow an adequate review by the court. It strikes us as a bit strange that the only justice who didn't think there was a sufficient record for the court was the one justice who is seeking re-election next week.
Politically polarized court
There was a day when we might not have been so cynical, but Ohio's Supreme Court has become a more politically polarized court in recent years, with campaigns run on almost open promises that past precedents would be cast to the winds in exchange for political support.
The court now comprises six Republicans, and the only Democrat, Alice Robie Resnick, is retiring.
It's time to restore some balance to the court. Give Paul Pffiefer, the court's most moderate Republican member, at least a chance to restore the kind of balance that was once championed by former Justice Andy Douglas, something of a maverick on the court.
In that spirit, we endorse Ben Espy, a former Columbus City Council member and state senator who has been in private practice for decades, for the seat being vacated by Resnick.
Robert Cupp, a 3rd District Court of Appeals judge and also a former state senator, is also eminently qualified for the bench.
But Espy will bring another voice to the court. While he has no judicial experience, we're confident that the talents of analysis and persuasion he has honed in the courtroom and the Statehouse will serve him, and the court, well.
The Vindicator endorses O'Neill and Espy for the Supreme Court in the firm belief that the court is in need of, at the very least, strong dissenting vocies.