For Ohio Supreme Court, Stratton and O’Connor

For Ohio Supreme Court, Stratton and O’Connor

We don’t like every decision the Ohio Supreme Court comes up with, and we’re not persuaded that a court is not an activist court just because the justices say it’s so. We think the present court was clearly activist when it reached back into the ’70s for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to provide former Gov. Bob Taft with an executive privilege that is nowhere to be found in Ohio law.

And we’re not comfortable with an all-Republican court, nor do we buy the fiction that this is a nonpartisan race. While it’s true that there will be no R’s or D’s behind anyone’s names on next Tuesday’s ballot, all four candidates were subject to overtly partisan primary process in March.

Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, who has been on the court since 1996, is being challenged by Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Peter Sikora. Justice Maureen O’Connor, on the court since 2003, is being challenged by Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph Russo.

The Vindicator is endorsing Stratton and O’Connor for re-election. Frankly, had Sikora challenged O’Connor, we would have been inclined to give him the nod. Of the two challengers, he is clearly the stronger candidate. And if there is one case in O’Connor’s background that is more troubling than any other, it is the executive privilege case. She had been Taft’s lieutenant governor before being appointed to the court. Her claim that she saw no conflict of interest rings hollow and her falling back on the fact that no one made a motion for her recusal is weak.

Still, Russo did not make a strong enough case for replacing her.

Overall, a strong record

O’Connor’s record as a common pleas judge and prosecutor in Summit County, as lieutenant governor and as a supreme court justice shows that she has been a consistently dedicated worker. A study of performance by the justices conducted by the Plain Dealer showed that O’Connor wrote more opinions in 2007 than any other justice and turned out her opinions in an average of 136 days. Only Justice Stratton produced her opinions more quickly. She did 20 in an average of 128 days.

Speed, of course, is not everything in writing legal opinions. The reasoning and scholarship must be sound. But the consistency of O’Connor’s work is an important factor.

It is, quite frankly, a shame that Judge Sikora, who has made two other bids for the Supreme Court, has not been successful. He would be valuable addition to the court. He makes a compelling argument that the all-Republican court has been an activist court. He has a sterling record of 19 years of service on the Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court, juvenile division, where he has been an innovator.

A strong advocate

Stratton, too, has gone beyond ordinary service, especially in spearheading mental health courts in the state. She formed the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Mental Illness in the Courts, and is encouraging judges in each county to establish alternatives to traditional criminal proceedings for people who are suffering with mental illness.

And while we are endorsing both Stratton and O’Connor for re-election, we must also put on the record our reservations about an issue being addressed by the justices, the rules of superintendency for courts throughout the state. If the rules do anything less than reassert the common law presumption that what courts do they must do in the most open manner possible, they will be setting the stage for decades of battles between the courts and the public over access.

When they eventually retire, neither justice should want to look back and realize that a mistaken policy they supported diminished the right of Ohioans to know what’s going on in the people’s courts.