League of Women Voters of the Cincinnati Area Education Fund
	Ohio State Government November 6, 2012 Election
	Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues Justice; Ohio State Supreme Court; Unexpired Term Ending 12/31/14

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 Sharon L. Kennedy: I support the election of judges. The Ohio Constitution originally provided for the appointment of judges. Due to legislative abuses of removing judges without cause, in 1850 a constitutional convention changed the provision for the appointment of judges to a provision for the election of judges. While there are legitimate concerns about electing judges, the alternative is a legislative or third+ party appointment process. Those alternatives are fraught with similar concerns of undue influence, political engineering, and allegations of pay-to-play politics. Until the voters decide to amend their Constitution and create a better system, I stand with Ohioans constitutional right to elect their judicial representatives. Answer from Yvette McGee Brown: I support the election of judges as long as Ohio's constitution requires it. In 1986, the voters resoundingly rejected a proposal to allow merit selection of judges. 25 years later, it may be time to revisit the question. That is why I participated in late Chief Justice Moyer's conference to look at the way Ohio selects judges. Other states use various models like citizens commissions and retention elections. While the current system is not perfect, I would want to carefully examine any proposed alternative. The chief objective of any system must be to find the most qualified judges. We must also guard against the danger of placing judicial selection in the hands of a few selected individuals who may not truly serve the interests of the people. 2. What changes would you recommend to reduce the perceived influence of money contributions in our courts? Answer from Yvette McGee Brown: Any change to the current system will require a constitutional amendment that changes the way judges are selected. With the current system, the Ohio Supreme Court has established limits on individual contributions to combat the perceived influence of money in judicial elections. Judges are required to present their qualifications to the electorate and in a state as large as Ohio, television and other paid media is the best vehicle for conveying our message. We also rely on groups like the LWV and the State and local Bar Associations to support and endorse candidates they find credible. I encourage voters to trust non-partisan endorsements, and not just TV advertising, as another way to reduce the perception of the influence of money. Answer from Sharon L. Kennedy: There are three ways to improve Ohioans confidence in the justice system. First, improve and increase civic education. Second, improve and increase decision-making transparency. Lastly, with appropriate approval, reform the statewide election process. Often, myths and misconceptions about the judicial system and the work of individual courts exist. Improving and increasing civic education to dispel myths and correct misconceptions can improve the public's understanding and impartiality confidence measures. In conjunction with civic education, technological advancements permit independent non-lawyer access and review of judicial decisions. Increasing decision-making transparency would improve the public's understanding and impartiality confidence measures. Lastly, subject to legislative, executive and voter approval, the creation of Associate Justice districts is a way to restructure statewide judicial elections to reduce reliance on campaign contributions and expenditures, while advancing confidence in an impartial judiciary. Only the Chief Justice is elected statewide. 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.