FOCUS ON OHIO POLITICS Justice’s bid for governor stirs up busy race

State Supreme Court Justice William M. O’Neill, a Chagrin Falls Democrat, announced last week he’s running for governor – but said he wouldn’t resign as a judge for now.

O’Neill’s platform will call for “legalization of recreational marijuana, a higher minimum wage, a decrease in in-state tuition, and the funding of mental health institutions across the state.”

O’Neill said he’d remain on the Supreme Court till he’s “certified for the ballot in February of 2018 … To do so any earlier is unfair to the 2 million Ohioans who elected me.” Presumably he’ll strive for fairness by recusing himself from cases that touch on his platform. (Example: Marijuana laws.)

With all due respect to O’Neill “2 million Ohioans,” it’s not clear, thanks to Ohio’s low-info judicial ballot, if the voters who supported him were specifically thinking “Bill O’Neill” – or a candidate they thought they “knew” because he had an Irish-American surname that sounds like the names of former or incumbent Justices Kennedy, O’Connor, O’Donnell (Republicans) and A. William and Francis Sweeney (Democrats).

10 things to watch for on Election Day

State Auditor David Yost, a Columbus Republican running for attorney general, said O’Neill should step down from the high court now. Ohio’s Code of Judicial Conduct, it says “a judge shall resign from office when he or she becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for a nonjudicial office.” But the code doesn’t define when someone (officially) becomes a candidate, so O’Neill, given that ambiguity, appears to be following the canon’s spirit.

The Supreme Court’s now 6-1 Republican, with O’Neill its lone Democrat. So maybe it’s Democrats who should have a beef with O’Neill. Assuming he does leave the court to run for governor, Republican Gov. John R. Kasich would appoint O’Neill’s successor, likely one of the GOP’s two endorsed 2018 Supreme Court candidates, Court of Appeals Judges Craig Baldwin, of Newark, or Mary DeGenaro, of suburban Youngstown. Baldwin or DeGenaro would gain the advantage of incumbency.

Four Democrats already are running for governor – former Rep. Connie Pillich of Cincinnati; Sen. Joseph Schiavoni of suburban Youngstown; former U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton, of suburban Akron; and Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley. You wonder what they’re thinking as they campaign night and day while O’Neill, for now, stays above it all.

ELECTION INFO: More of your questions answered about Issue 2

The real question is why O’Neill is the Supreme Court’s only Democrat. For some reason, Democrats lost their one-time focus on electing a pro-injured-Ohioans Supreme Court. In the ’70s, for instance, Democrats and the AFL-CIO helped elect A. William Sweeney and former Cleveland Mayor Ralph S. Locher to the court, giving it a Democratic majority.

Democrats bolstered that in 1978, when voters promoted Justice Frank D. Celebrezze to chief justice. Celebrezze, as head of Ohio’s judiciary, may have been his own worst enemy. But it’s virtually impossible to imagine Celebrezze’s court ruling as the GOP-majority Supreme Court did last December. It limited the damages a teenage rape victim could win – thanks to a 2005 (“tort reform”) bill sponsored by then-Sen. Steve Stivers, a suburban Columbus Republican now in Congress.

MORE ON POLITICS: Ohio House votes to require photos on food stamp cards

“I cannot accept the proposition,” Justice O’Neill wrote in his dissenting opinion, “that a teenager who is raped by a pastor fits into a preordained formula for damages. Are we really ready to affirm the legislature’s decision to say to a future victim, ‘We don’t know you, we don’t know the facts of your case, and we don’t know what a duly empaneled jury is going to say, but your damages are a maximum of $500,000?’ No parent of a teenage daughter would accept that outcome as being just.”

But Ohio’s Supreme Court did.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: Gun control about saving lives, not waging culture wars

WASHINGTON — You have perhaps heard the joke about the liberal who is so open-minded that he can’t even take his own side in an argument. What’s less funny is that on gun control, liberals have been told for years that if they do take their own side in the argument, they will only hurt their cause. Supporters of even modest restrictions...
Opinion: Photo captures Trump's notes for listening session
Opinion: Photo captures Trump's notes for listening session

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump held a worthwhile listening session Wednesday featuring a range of views on how to combat gun violence in schools. And while Trump's at-times-meandering comments about arming teachers will certainly raise eyebrows, for the most part he did listen. Thanks in part, it seems, to a helpful reminder. ...
Opinion: Going to school shouldn’t turn into a death sentence

MIAMI — I know a high-school senior who hadn’t heard the awful news from Parkland before he got home Wednesday. He stared at the television and said, “What?” And, moments later, shaking his head: “What the hell?” This young man doesn’t know anyone who goes to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, though it’s...
Opinion: Parkland school student rises up to challenge gun carnage

WASHINGTON — It was a profoundly poignant image: Thirty to 40 teens huddled together in a small dark room, their downturned faces illuminated by cellphones as they learned about an active shooter prowling their school. Via news apps, these survivors of Wednesday’s murderous rampage at a Parkland, Florida, high school, where 17 were killed...
Opinion: Will automation kill our jobs?

A recent article in The Guardian dons the foreboding title “Robots will destroy our jobs — and we’re not ready for it.” The article claims, “For every job created by robotic automation, several more will be eliminated entirely. … This disruption will have a devastating impact on our workforce.” According to...
More Stories