Ohio

For the second year in a row, Ohio is on track to make significant amendments to its Rules of Civil Procedure and to pilot a second civil justice case management reform project. These amendments align with national recommendations for reform and reflect similar reforms made in Idaho, Maine, Missouri, and Texas.

More and more courts are working to address backlogged cases and court users' dissatisfaction. In just the last few months, several Midwestern courts have taken steps to introduce more technology into their courts, removing barriers that many litigants face, especially those who represent themselves.

With the leadership of Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a coalition of groups in Ohio has launched a new website—Judicial Votes Count—to better educate voters in judicial elections. The site offers information about the structure of the Ohio court system and the role of judges in that system, as well as details about how to vote in Ohio.

A federal judge has upheld the unusual system that Ohio uses to elect its judges, which features partisan primary elections and a nonpartisan general election. The challenge to the Ohio system was first filed in 2010 by the Ohio Democratic Party, three judicial candidates, and a public employees union, who claimed that not allowing judicial candidates to run with party labels violated their First Amendment rights.

At a recent public forum, Ohio's three newest supreme court justices discussed the threat posed to state courts by significant turnover on the bench. Over the next six years, four of the high court's seven justices—along with approximately 100 judges statewide—will reach retirement age. Justice Sharon Kennedy acknowledged that change of this magnitude could lead to questions about the stability of state laws and their application.

In a recent speech to the Ohio State Bar Association, Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor identified eight areas in which the state’s process for electing judges might be improved. Among the reforms that O’Connor put on the table were the creation of a nominating commission to advise the governor in filling judicial vacancies between elections. O’Connor encourages public discussion of the reform proposals through a new website.

The defeat of two incumbent supreme court justices has led some to consider making changes to the judicial election process. Neither justices’ qualifications were called into question, and both received higher ratings from the state bar association than did their challengers—one of whom was “not recommended.”

Incumbent justice Robert Cupp asked the state Republican Party to pull an ad describing his election opponent as sympathetic to rapists based on his past opinions as a court of appeals judge.

Challengers to two incumbent supreme court justices questioned their campaign financing practices. One of the challengers promised to recuse himself from cases involving contributors, while the other has raised no money.

The Akron Bar Association formed a judicial campaign conduct committee as part of an effort to improve the tone and conduct of local judicial campaigns. The committee will ask candidates to sign a clean-campaign pledge and will review complaints about improper campaign behavior. The committee consists of five Democrats, five Republicans, and an independent and includes eight lawyers and three non-lawyers.