For Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, the focus is on the rule of law - cleveland.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor has followed this guiding principle throughout her nearly 37 years of public service: The rule of law is paramount.

That philosophy is tested now more than ever, as the Ohio Supreme Court wrestles with historic cases, at the heart of which are accusations of gerrymandering by the Republican dominated Ohio Redistricting Commission – cases steeped in politics that have stirred debate over the balance of power between Ohio’s three branches of government.

O’Connor, a Republican, has joined with three Democratic associate justices to strike down four sets of state legislative maps and one congressional district map as unconstitutional. A second congressional map remains under review. The fifth set of legislative maps is due before the court Friday.

O’Connor’s decisions have not been without criticism; they’ve even prompted threats of impeachment from some Republicans.

But for O’Connor, it is not about politics. It is about principle.

“Everything I’ve done has been in upholding this rule of law,” she said, describing her philosophy in a recent interview with cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer. “We have responsibility for it. That is how society effectively functions.”

That steered O’Connor as a magistrate, a judge, and a prosecutor in Summit County before moving to state-level offices as a trailblazer. She was just the second woman to hold the office of lieutenant governor, running on a ticket with Bob Taft. She became the sixth woman to sit on the Ohio Supreme Court. In 2010, O’Connor was elected chief justice -- the first woman in Ohio’s history to hold that post. She will leave the bench at year’s end, at age 70, barred by judicial age limits from seeking a new term.

Despite her groundbreaking career, she is humble about her place in history, crediting those around her for enabling her to succeed.

And she professes she never intended a career in the judiciary – much less a legacy as the chief justice poised to save Ohio from a constitutional crisis.

Early career

After growing up in Northeast Ohio, O’Connor entered Seton Hill College, a Catholic university in Pennsylvania. Law was not on her mind. In fact, she started out in pursuit of a pre-med major, she said.

O’Connor considered studying education in graduate school, but realized teaching was not the career choice she wanted.

“Thousands of students have benefitted from that decision,” she once quipped during an interview with Attorney at Law Magazine.

“You’ve got to try on things to see if they fit,” O’Connor told cleveland.com. “You have all these life experiences and things happen and life presents opportunities.”

Ultimately, she turned to law, graduating from Cleveland Marshall College of Law in 1980.

She set up a practice in Summit County and adopted the mantra that if you do your best, people will notice.

She did get noticed – in 1985 she was asked to be a magistrate in Summit County Probate Court. In 1992 she won election to the bench as a Summit County Common Pleas judge.

Enforcing the law

O’Connor switched to Summit County prosecutor in 1995 and aggressively focused on repeat offenders and violent criminals. She went after public officials who breached the public trust.

In Columbus, she lobbied the General Assembly for tougher laws on rape and gang-related offenses.

She won praise from victims’ rights groups and educational institutions and awards from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Cleveland State University.

One task she took on was getting Summit County more focused on the collection of child support payments. The Children’s Defense Fund rated the county’s Child Support Enforcement Agency 87th among Ohio’s 88 counties when O’Connor took office. Two years later the office was nominated for two national awards.

Rule of law and judicial integrity

O’Connor views rule of law as a foundation for society – an important part of gaining public buy-in for the judiciary to be effective.

“We don’t enforce. The courts have neither purse nor sword,” she said. “What makes the courts effective is public trust.”

Fostering that trust requires maintaining an even keel in court as attorneys make arguments.

“I don’t get angry,” O’Connor said. “If you’re going to be a judge you better have patience … I’ve always preached that you’ve got to leave your passions at the door.”

And O’Connor displays a willingness to adjust positions as new circumstances and views come before the court. Former Justice Paul Pfeifer cited, as an example, O’Connor’s evolution on the issue of caps for damage awards.

Twice before, the Supreme Court had rejected challenges to the constitutionality of caps imposed by state law on non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, in civil lawsuits. The caps were intended to curb frivolous litigation.

Late last year, however, the high court revisited the issue, agreeing to take up a case involving a minor plaintiff, who was sexually abused.

A judge, following the caps, had reduced a $20 million jury award for non-economic damages to $250,000. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case in March but has not yet ruled.

Pfeifer served 24 years on the Supreme Court, including 14 with O’Connor (six after she became chief justice). He now is executive director of the Ohio Judicial Conference.

“She does exhibit a willingness to change her mind,” Pfeifer said. “We have differed on a number of cases over the years. … I have written a number of dissents.

“But I have also seen a willingness in her to say, ‘Well maybe I was wrong,’” Pfeifer said. “I regard that as a strength.”

Eye toward reform

As chief justice, O’Connor has promoted several initiatives intended to strengthen fairness and confidence in the judiciary.

She pushed for reforms to limit bail to the lowest amount needed to ensure a court appearance. And she supported efforts to educate judges and court personnel about avoiding “debtor prisons” and guidelines for appropriate financial sanctions that can be levied in court.

O’Connor spearheaded the creation of a task force to study conviction integrity and recommend improvements for the conviction process and post-conviction review. And she charged the Supreme Court’s Task Force on Access to Justice with identifying obstacles people may encounter accessing the civil justice system in Ohio.

“I really appreciate her thinking out of the box,” said Catherine Turcer, the longtime executive director of the good-government advocate Common Cause Ohio.

Turcer acknowledged she has not agreed with all O’Connor’s proposals. For example, one proposal was to hold judiciary elections on odd numbered years to try to raise their public profile.

“I didn’t support that because more people vote in even numbered years, and I was worried it could have a disparate effect,” Turcer said. “I completely understand, though, how she got there.”

And she praised efforts underway now to promote racial fairness by establishing a comprehensive criminal justice data system aimed at fair and equitable administration of justice.

The dangers of intimidation

Attacks on the judiciary – particularly in a highly polarized and politically charged atmosphere, can endanger public trust in the system, O’Connor said.

There are more than 700 judges across Ohio, and the vast majority are looking to administer just results, she said.

“I’d like people to know we have a hard-working group of judges,” she said. “I’d like people to realize that now, more than ever, because of the attacks that are going on.”

In O’Connor’s case, she has received letters complaining that, as a judge, she does not vote enough like a Republican.

“That is an attempt to intimidate the judiciary and an attempt to erode the confidence of the judiciary,” she said.

For that reason, O’Connor said, a judge’s work must remain entirely apolitical.

“There should be no ‘vote like a Republican’ or ‘vote like a Democrat,’” she said. “A judge’s job is to listen to what’s being said and to apply the law.”

Philosophy put to the test

That philosophy is being put to the test.

O’Connor was the lone Republican to join with the court’s three Democrats to rule that maps prepared by the Republican led Ohio Redistricting Commission were unconstitutional pro-GOP gerrymanders.

That prompted criticism from Republicans legislators who muttered about impeachment – mostly behind closed doors. At a speaking event, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose said impeaching O’Connor “may be the right thing to do.”

Interestingly, while talk of impeachment was focused on O’Connor, she was not listed as the author of any of the rulings. Justice Melody J. Stewart authored the first opinion striking down state legislative maps. Three others were issued per curiam – as the voice of the court – with no lead author.

Impeachment talk has waned. Those familiar with the court and the chief justice doubt she can be intimidated.

“It’s clear to me that she puts priority in what is in the Ohio Constitution and what is law,” said Turcer, a proponent of fair districts in the state. “She expects that other people will follow the rule of law as well, and she’s very willing to call prominent people out for their shenanigans.”

The court’s latest ruling on April 14 -- again, with O’Connor joining Democrats Stewart, Jennifer Brunner and Michael P. Donnelly – took the unusual step of not only addressing the merits of the case, but also arguing it should remain in state court, rather than in federal court.

A Republican-backed lawsuit in U.S. District Court asked the federal judges to intervene and impose maps that had previously been declared unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court’s persuasive ruling won the day. The federal panel agreed to hold off until at least May 28.

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen what will happen this week. The Supreme Court gave the Ohio Redistricting Commission 22 days to draw up new maps that meet constitutional standards. But the commission will not even meet until Wednesday, two days before the deadline.

Pfeifer recalled that a decade ago, O’Connor joined his dissent when the court ruled 4-3 in favor of legislative maps that were challenged for excessive gerrymandering.

Just as she took a stand then, he doubts she will bend now.

“Maureen’s a tough cookie. Always has been,” Pfeifer said. “Anybody who thinks they can pressure her is kidding themselves.”

source: https://www.cleveland.com/open/2022/05/for-chief-justice-maureen-oconnor-the-focus-is-on-the-rule-of-law.html

Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.