Article Photos

An age-old debate over whether state supreme court judges should be elected or appointed is regaining attention as some state justices, the American Bar Association and the Ohio League of Women Voters are making a push this year for a change.

The effort to abolish elected judges is part of a nationwide push by many in the legal system, although not all interested parties are buying into the argument, including many local attorneys and judges.

Proponents of the change claim the legal system is currently tainted by judges who seek campaign donations. They hope to develop a system in which judges are appointed and later put up for a "retention" election, where voters would decide every so often whether or not to keep the judge in office.

Washington County Common Pleas Judge Ed Lane said he feels any change is unnecessary because the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the issue of campaign contributions. The Supreme Court ruling was fueled by a West Virginia case in which a state Supreme Court justice ruled on a dispute that affected a company whose chief executive spent $3 million to help get the judge elected.

"The Supreme Court perfectly addressed this issue," Lane said. "They said if you make a contribution to a judge, that judge cannot hear any case you have an interest in. That really takes away the incentive in trying to influence judges by contributing to their campaigns, which I think is the exact, correct decision."

Lane said stripping the public of the right to decide an officeholder is another major concern of his. The current proposal would only apply to state supreme court justices, and not common pleas or municipal court judges.

"Regardless, I'm 100 percent for people retaining their right to elect their officials," he said.

Caroline Putnam, a member of the Washington County League of Women Voters, said despite the multimillion campaigns, few people know much about state Supreme Court candidates.

"I believe the thinking is that this would also help to ensure the best candidates are looked at for appointment," she said. "And the public would still have a voice through the retention process."

According to the Associated Press, the plan currently being reviewed would call for state commissions made up mostly of non-lawyers to pick judges. Governors would appoint judges the commissions select, and voters would decide in future elections whether the judges keep their jobs.

Marietta City Law Director Roland Riggs III said "the devil is in the details" of the plan.

"There are pros and cons to both sides of this, but I would really like to know more about how this would work," he said. "Before I say I'm in favor of appointments or retention, I have to say I'm in favor of just letting people get to vote."

Washington County Public Defender Ray Smith said he also prefers the current election practice, although he noted some possible benefits to appointment.

"I definitely think there are situations where the best person for the job doesn't get the job," Smith said. "I like letting the people decide. That way, if there's a judge who is doing a terrible job they can get rid of him."

Smith said although the public may get a chance to vote out a judge with a retention vote, there is a good chance the same individuals who appointed the last judge could get to appoint the next judge.

Beverly resident Debbie Heiss, 41, said she has questions about when retention elections would be held.

"Would it coincide with presidential elections, so there would be good voter turnout?" she asked. "A concern I would have is not having a lot of voters turn out and having a judge in there not doing the job we want."

Heiss also expressed concern about campaign contributions to judges.

"That is something that needs addressed," she said.