Ohio Supreme Court
Monday, June 23rd, 2008 By David OwsianyThomas Suddes wrote this op-ed in Sunday’s Columbus Dispatch regarding the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision to compel Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to appoint Brian K. Daley to the Summit County Board of Elections. The Summit County Republican Party Executive Committee recommended Daley after Brunner refused to appoint the committee’s first choice, Alex Arshinkoff.
Despite Suddes’ claim that the court deployed “activism” in reaching its decision, the reality is that the court was presented with a statute that is ambiguous as it relates to the relative roles of the county political parties and the secretary of state in appointing members of the county boards of elections. The justices used their interpretive skills to effectuate an outcome that is consistent with the text and intent of the statute.
This is nothing compared the court’s past activism. During the 1990s up until 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court regularly found itself in protracted battles with the General Assembly by striking down laws related to school funding, tort reform, workers’ compensation reform and other public policy matters. Today, following a series of retirements and subsequent elections, a majority of the court has emerged that respects the doctrine of separation of powers and recognizes the authority the Ohio Constitution gives the General Assembly to enact public policy. Two justices – Maureen O’Connor and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton – who are part of that current majority – are up for re-election this year. Accordingly, the November election will help determine the future direction of the Ohio Supreme Court, including whether it will maintain its current path of acting with restraint from the bench or return to its activism of the past by regularly second-guessing the policy decisions of the General Assembly.
Tags: General Assembly, Liberty, Politics
