Meet the Candidates for Ohio Supreme Court Justice
An introduction to the Ohio Supreme Court
Ohio is one of 30 states, the District of Columbia, and federal courts that operate under a common law system. The U.S. Supreme Court and the highest appellate court in each state make up that nation’s appellate court system. The states have chosen from among three options for appellate court structures: (1) a state supreme court, a middle tier appellate court, and a trial court; (2) a state supreme court and a trial court; or (3) a state supreme court only.
By state constitution, Ohio must maintain a Court of last resort, an intermediate appellate court, and a trial court system. The seven members of the Supreme Court of Ohio are selected statewide through nonpartisan election. The chief justice and the associate justices each serve six-year terms , but they may be re-elected for successive terms.
The jurisdiction of the supreme court is set forth in Section 2(B) of Article IV of Ohio’s constitution, and specified by statute in Chapters 1501 and 2501 of the Ohio Revised Code. The court has original jurisdiction in certain cases, including the exercise of original jurisdiction in proceedings in habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, procedendo, and quo warranto, by filing a complaint with the court. The court has appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals by right or by allowance.
The court hears appeals of right from lower courts of appeals in death penalty cases and cases involving questions of the constitutionality of statutes. It also has jurisdiction in matters relating to elections such as the ballot board process, challenges to the certification of statewide ballot issues, the counting of votes, and recounts.
The Candidates for Ohio Supreme Court Justice
This November, two candidates will be contending for one seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. Incumbent Justice Michael P. Donnelly was elected to his first six-year term in 2018. However, should he win reelection, Justice Donnelly’s term could be cut short due to a recently exposed quirk in the United States Constitution. The Constitution bars a sitting Supreme Court Justice from serving past the age of 70. Because the Ohio election for Supreme Court Justice is nonpartisan, neither candidate is in possession of a political party affiliation.
Ann Marie Tracey is Justice Donnelly’s opponent in this election. Ms. Tracey is a native of Toledo Ohio and currently works as a Judge on the Sixth District Court of Appeals. She began this position just four days after Justice Donnelly won his first election to the Supreme Court in 2018, but temporarily moved into the seventh district so that she could begin law school at Cleveland State University in 1999. While a law student, Ms. Tracey worked under then-Professor Walter Jones (who is now a Justice on the Supreme Court of Ohio) and interned as a law clerk for the Probate Court in Cleveland.
Ms. Tracey offered her opinion on gun control in a rape case involving a gun as a weapon. She openly stated that the gun was an integral aspect of the crime that had occurred, and expressed her belief that sexual assault cases should be generally heard in a different court for this reason. In 2017, she wrote an opinion regarding the admissibility of evidence intended to impeach the credibility of a witness brought to the Court of Appeals for review without assignment of error. In writing her opinion, she noted that to entertain such evidence would undermine the rules of civil procedure and reduce the Court’s ability to review cases fully on appeal. One month later, she wrote an opinion finding insufficient evidence to convict a defendant of a violent sexual assault. That opinion noted that a conviction should not be affirmed based on speculative evidence alone.
From 2005-2016, Ms. Tracey served as a magistrate at the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Before that, she acted as a staff attorney for the Cuyahoga County Office of the Public Defender. She began her law career as a law clerk for the Honorable Richard McMonagle of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
Justice Donnelly grew up near the West Park neighborhood of Cleveland, and attended Ohio State University and Cleveland Marshall College of Law. He opened his own private practice in 1990, where he specialized in personal injury law until 2009. In 2003, Justice Donnelly joined the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas as a judge. In that court, he presided over several high-profile criminal cases, including 10 years spent as the sole judge in the Juvenile Division. While on the court, Justice Donnelly contributed to the creation of and became chair of the Cuyahoga County Sexual Assault Kit Task Force. This organization gained national attention for its efforts and successes in solving cold rape cases.
In 2014, Justice Donnelly succeeded Tim McMonagle as a judge on the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeal. There, he worked to reduce caseloads in the court and assisted in his own "Justice Bus Initiative," which provided people all over Ohio with information about the appellate courts.
How Justices are Elected
Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court are elected from partisan districts that consist of several counties (currently, 3-11 counties each, depending on population). Justices serve six-year terms. The terms of two of the seven justices expire every two years. Vacancies are filled by the Governor for the unexpired term.
Justices must be admitted to practice in Ohio for at least six years and must be licensed to practice law at the time of their election.
By law, a candidate for the Ohio Supreme Court seat must be a resident of Ohio for one year immediately before his or her election but the residency requirement may be waived to fill an unexpired term.
Judicial candidates must file financial disclosure statements and complete campaign disclosure forms. In elections in even-numbered years, judicial candidates, as well as candidates for the State Board of Education, must file late contribution reports and campaign finance reports, which require a great deal of information. Also, these candidates are subject to far greater restrictions on receiving campaign contributions than other candidates. Judicial candidates in contested elections must participate in a debate sponsored by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The position of Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court is listed in 2 R.C. 305.32(B)(9) as among the "Positions with Specified Compensation."
What are the Election Issues?
One of the key issues in this election is gerrymandering. The two GOP candidates support the current state legislative and congressional district maps, which are the most gerrymandered in the nation according to almost all observers. The two Democratic candidates support creating a Citizens Commission to draw fairer, more balanced district lines that reflect the population across the state, reducing the partisan control that has resulted in these maps. Another major issue is judicial campaign funding. The two GOP candidates have received in the neighborhood of $1 million each from the Ohio Republican Party for their campaigns. Although legally permissible due to the lack of contribution limits for judicial campaigns, this appears to be an attempt by the Republican Party to buy control of the Ohio Supreme Court . The Ohio Supreme Court candidates this year have been rated as the most expensive in the country to date, and are on track to be the most expensive in history. One of the Democratic candidates, who is a sitting appellate judge, recused herself from at least five cases that involved entities who contributed money to her campaign. Other candidates have received contributions from law firms and others having cases before the Court. Many legal observers believe the integrity of the court is jeopardized both in terms of the perception of fairness by the public and actual conflicts when considering cases involving entities connected to these large contributors.
Effects of the Supreme Court
The power of the court lies in the authority to make decisions and set policies for our state that affect our lives and those of our children and grandchildren. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act and the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision on Cleveland’s school vouchers program are two prime examples of the impact great courts can have. What is less obvious, but just as critical, are Supreme Court decisions that involve property rights, business and labor relations, medical malpractice, employment issues, criminal law, police practices and redistricting boundaries that require decisions backed by solid legal reasoning.
In 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court in equal protection analysis overruled a precedent that limited the equal protection challenge to certain statutory classifications to a rational basis standard. The impact of the decision was that, in equal protection cases, Ohioans may now require the government to justify legislation that treats people differently. In State v. Horner, 2004-Ohio-6767, the Ohio Supreme Court held that firing a warning shot may be justifiable. Writing for the majority, Justice O’Donnell said "In balancing the offender’s right to protect his home and loved ones from attack and the state’s interest in protecting human life, we hold that when a homeowner is confronted with a situation that could manifest itself into an attack, an Ohio homeowner is permitted to fire a warning shot under R.C. 9.68. The circumstances surrounding the firing of a warning shot must be considered, but the act of shooting a warning shot one is [sic] permitted to protect oneself and others does not in itself create a substantial risk of physical harm to persons or violate R.C. 9.68." The impact of this decision will allow homeowners in Ohio more latitude in protecting their property and their occupants. In State ex rel. Shemo v. Blackwell, 2006-Ohio-6138, the court’s holding requires the Secretary of State to conduct random checks of voter registration forms that a board of elections deems doubtful or suspicious. The impact of this decision is that non-citizens and duplicates appear to be less likely to be registered to vote in Ohio. In State v. Copen, 2006-Ohio-5690, the Ohio Supreme Court held that it is a violation of the federal Search and Seizure Clause for police officers to forcibly enter a person’s home to arrest the person without lawful authority. The impact of this decision is reflected in the language of the Court: "It is a fourth amendment violation to forcibly enter a person’s home to arrest the person unless the officer possesses at least a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the arrestee is armed and dangerous."
How to get the Scoop
As with presidential politics, the issue is not just "name recognition" and whether you saw a funny or felt-inspiring ad. Do you know what you are voting *for*? In this case, we wish to assist you in finding information about candidates in this race for Ohio Supreme Court Justice.
The Ohio State Bar Association website contains an excellent candidate directory. Links to campaign websites are available for all six candidates. There are no publicly-financed candidates, so your opinion can only be gained through information disclosed by the candidates themselves. An Ohio Voter Information Guide website is also available to provide some insight into the endorsement process (such as it is) .
Location of campaign activities may also have some impact on who you ultimately choose to vote for. Factors to consider (or not!) include state House district, congressional district, additional hours of travel, participation in a fundraiser, and which candidate someone invited you to hear at a local event. If you have been to no events to hear the candidates, your independent research is very important. Yard signs have been popping up around libraries and coffee shops, where political types congregate for lunch, and the local Board of Elections. Signs have been spotted in yards of well-known community figures, sometimes carrying endorsements. But don’t look here for a sign to guide your decision. There is no substitute for REALLY thinking about the candidates.