|
The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of the Cincinnati Area and asked of all candidates for this office.
See below for questions on
Election of Judges,
Contributions
Click on a name for candidate information. See also more information about this contest.
 |
1. Do you support or oppose the election of judges and why?
|
Answer from Robert R. Cupp:
There positive and negatives aspects to both the elected and the appointed methods of selecting judges. Although the appointed method eliminates campaign contributions necessary in an elected system, citizens also lose their right to vote, at least in the initial selection. In Ohio, voters have on several occasions opted to keep judicial elections by defeating constitutional amendments which would have created an appointed system of judicial selection. One reason is that selection by appointment does not eliminate politics but merely drives it behind closed doors where it loses transparency and public accountability. Judicial election campaigns serve an important purpose of helping to remind and educate the public about the essential role of the judiciary in our three-branch constitutional system. On balance, I believe the elected system, although not without drawbacks, is an open process which has the advantage.
Answer from William M. O'Neill:
Yes I support the election of Judges. We have the power to decide who goes to jail and who goes free; who inherits your possessions when you die; and who raises your children when you are alive. Those responsibilities are simply too important to be left to an appointee or a bureaucrat. The voters are entitled to decide who shall fill these critically important positions.
|
2. What changes would you recommend to reduce the perceived influence of money contributions in our courts?
|
Answer from Robert R. Cupp:
The key word in this question is "perceived." I don't believe the limited amounts permitted to be contributed to judicial campaign committees have any actual influence on the outcome of any individual court case. Civic organizations, the media, bar associations, and judicial organizations can help reduce any unwarranted perceptions by a sustained effort informing the public that the Code of Judicial Conduct, which regulates the conduct of judges and judicial candidates, provides important safeguards, including (1) strict limits on the amount of any money contributions, (2) a prohibition on judicial candidates personally soliciting another for a contribution or personally accepting contributions, (3) a prohibition on promising or appearing to promise to decide specific cases or issues in a particular way; (4) that public disclosure of all contributions is required by statute; and (5) that judges whose impartiality may reasonably be questioned are required to recuse from a case.
Answer from William M. O'Neill:
Very simply stated it is fundamentally wrong for Judges to be accepting money from anyone. Recently two Justices on the Ohio Supreme Court accepted a combined $12,600 from a donor during the time period they were deciding a major case for that very donor. Money and Judges don't mix. Never have and never will. It is time for the people of Ohio to demand a better system of electing our Judges. I would propose a $10.00 court cost on every new lawsuit filed and that money would fund a judicial education fund which could be given to judicial candidates. In return all judicial candidates would be prohibited form taking any money from anybody.
Responses to questions asked of each candidate
are reproduced as submitted to the League.
Candidates' statements are presented as submitted. Answers will be cut off
if they exceed a word limit, if present. Direct references to opponents are not permitted.
The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.
| 
League of Women Voters of the Cincinnati Area Education Fund
