While everyone is focused on the presidential race, there’s another pair of races on the Ohio state ballot this year that could have a far-reaching impact. Those are the two seats open on the state Supreme Court, currently held by Judith French and Sharon Kennedy. We’re recommending electing their opponents, Tenth District Court of Appeals Judge Jennifer Brunner, running against French, and Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleases Judge John O’Donnell, running against Kennedy.
Judicial races are officially “nonpartisan,” with no party affiliation indicated on the ballot, but in reality they are not: French and Kennedy are Republicans; Brunner and O’Donnell are Democrats.
Currently the balance of the court is 5-2, favoring Republicans, and that needs to change for one crucial reason: undoing gerrymandering.
Voters in Ohio approved ballot measures for fairer legislative redistricting (2015) and congressional redistricting (2018) by overwhelming margins. These measures were designed to make both the makeup of the statehouse and Ohio’s
In theory, that should happen based on these measures. However, there are loopholes in a law that could allow the large Republican majorities in the statehouse and their control of all statewide offices to continue to draw lopsided maps (In most elections for Congress, the statewide result varies only slightly from 50/50 but Republicans hold 75% of the seats and not a single seat has changed hands since the last maps were drawn for the 2012 election). If that happens, then the maps could be challenged legally — and the state Supreme Court holds the deciding vote.
Brunner has long been a powerhouse advocate for fair elections. She served as Ohio secretary of state from 2007-2011, tasked with undoing the horror show her predecessor Kenneth Blackwell made of the office. That led to the 2004 debacle of an election that made Ohio the butt of national ridicule. She put in place many measures to make Ohio elections smoother, fairer and more open.
John O’Donnell has earned an excellent reputation in his time on the Cuyahoga bench, where he has served since 2006, and has earned much stronger ratings from the bar associations who contribute to the Judge4Yourself judicial rating website.
But there’s an elephant in his room. O’Donnell, who also ran (and lost) in 2014 and 2016, was the judge who, in 2015, acquitted police officer Michael Brelo in the notorious 137 shots case, in which dozens of police cars from multiple municipalities pursued two unarmed people in a high-speed chase, and more than a dozen officers pumped 137 shots into their vehicle.
The fervent wish for someone to be held accountable is understandable. However, as O’Donnell concluded, Brelo’s guilt couldn’t be separated from that of the other officers. And the entire prosecutorial system is weighted against ever holding police officers accountable for anything (Don’t get me started on Tamir Rice or we’ll be here all day). A judge can only work with what he is given.
But it’s no surprise that there is anger in the black community that there was no officer was held accountable for that horrific incident and that most were reinstated in their jobs. I’m not black and I’m angry too. But attempts to brand O’Donnell a “terrible judge” and grope for other things to pin on him are misguided. The animosity is all about the 137 shots case.
That shouldn’t be enough to throw away a chance to protect voting rights and the opportunity to have fair, balanced districts in Ohio for the first time in decades — which could be a pathway to reforming police accountability and the current lack thereof. Vote for Brunner and O’Donnell.