Ohioans should keep French, Kennedy as high court justices

Considering the significance of Ohio Supreme Court races, it’s a shame that many voters’ choices this fall will boil down to a guessing game or a snap judgment. It’s disheartening because as the powerful third branch of state government, its justices play critical roles in interpreting, upholding and sometimes trashing all matters of public policy — from life-or-death capital punishment appeals to decisions on hot- button social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and organized-labor rights.

Of course, voters can be partially excused because most Supreme Court candidates do not publicly vent their personal viewpoints. And that’s how it should be for the bench to maintain its impartiality. Making decisions even more difficult for many voters is the fact that court candidates run with no political affiliation affixed to their name on the ballot.

But just because these races are low key and low on the ballot does not mean that responsible voters should not educate themselves on the candidates to make thoughtful decisions.

The Vindicator Editorial Board has assessed the experience, background, skill sets and demeanor of the four candidates vying for two separate seats on the high court. After careful reflection and evaluation, we conclude that Justices Judi French and Sharon Kennedy are most deserving of election to their first full six-year terms on the bench.

FRENCH VS. O’DONNELL

In the race for the Supreme Court term that begins Jan. 2, Justice French, a Salem native and Sebring High School graduate, has earned retention. She was appointed to the seat by Gov. John Kasich in January 2013, based on her eight years of appellate experience on the 10th District Court of Appeals.

In the nearly two years she has served, Justice French has cast hundreds of votes and written dozens of decisions. In making those decisions, the main criterion always focuses on the constitutionality of the question, she stresses.

Though she is a Republican by political stripe, she vows she would never become a judicial activist more concerned with making law than interpreting it. Some of her decisions have angered her party faithful, most notably her ruling to uphold the expansion of the Medicaid program in Ohio, one tenet of the Affordable Care Act that the GOP has skewered.

We also support Justice Kennedy because she’s proved herself to be a highly engaging role model on civic education. In both 2013 and 2014, she has visited all 88 counties in the state to educate young people about the court system in specific and the value of participatory democracy in general.

In sum, French has rightly earned her “highly recommended” rating from the Ohio State Bar Association.

Her opponent, Judge John O’Donnell, who has sat on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas for 10 years, also earned the coveted “highly recommended” rating from OSBA. Though O’Donnell likely would serve the high court well — and slightly lessen its out-of-balance 6-1 Republican majority — The Vindicator agrees with French in that the skill sets required of high court judges differ from those of trial court judges. Justice French also has established a praiseworthy record of service that voters should enable her to continue.

KENNEDY-LETSON RACE

Unlike the French-O’Donnell contest, Ohio voters face a far less difficult decision in the race for the Jan. 1 Supreme Court term. That race pits Justice Kennedy, a Republican from Butler County, against Tom Letson, a term-limited Democrat state representative from Warren.

Like Justice French, Justice Kennedy vows that she follows the rules of law and constitutional principles — not her personal beliefs — when writing decisions and voting on others.

One of her decisions that we most admire upheld accountability and free access of the public to their government and its records. It dealt with a case from Euclid, which was sued for failure to turn over public records. The court majority ruled that the city didn’t have to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees since officials eventually complied. But Kennedy noted in her lone dissent that such a reading defeats the purpose of the state’s Sunshine Laws.

Her opponent, Letson, views election to the high court as a means “to continue to help my fellow Ohioans and this is the place where I would best be able to do that.” We disagree with Letson, because he has precious little judicial experience under his belt to do that well. An effective state legislator does not naturally mature into an effective Supreme Court justice.

In addition to his lack of training for the post, Letson’s personal integrity is marred by a series of tax troubles, including a $37,000 Internal Revenue Service tax lien and late payment of property taxes. Even though those issues have been resolved, according to Letson, they likely played roles in OSBA giving Letson a “not recommended” evaluation.

We agree with OSBA and recommend voters unhesitatingly select Kennedy for the seat.