For more information click on http://www.justiceatstake.org/resources/new_politics_of_judicial_elections_20002009/

To read the full report click here

To read the executive summary click here

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 6/29/10. COLUMBUS — I was disappointed to see that some Columbus City Council members are considering conducting closed-door meetings in the future ( Dispatch article, last Tuesday). Secret meetings, held out of public view, undermine the very foundation of our government and erode public trust in elected officials. If government is to be effective, it must be accountable to the people. When meetings are held in private, watchdogs are unable to effectively guard against corruption. Decisions that are made in closed-door sessions often are tainted by suspicion, which weakens the City Council’s ability to implement laws. City leaders often opine about the need to engage more community members in civic life, but closed-door meetings only serve to alienate the public from local government. Many residents might choose not to become involved because the message from the City Council is that they are not welcome at meetings.

Council members serve the people, and the people’s right to know should be a priority for all elected officials. Closed meetings engender distrust and will spoil any positive steps the City Council makes on a host of issues.

Leaders should scrap this misguided plan and focus on engaging the community rather than locking the door.

MIKE BRICKNER, Communications director

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Cleveland

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 6/29/10. COLUMBUS — As more and more Ohioans opt to vote by absentee ballot, the neighborhood polling place could go the way of the milkman. Thus, a consolidation of many of Franklin County’s 865 elections precincts, as proposed in a plan before the county Board of Elections, is inevitable. But hallowed institutions, especially those fundamental to democracy, shouldn’t be cast aside abruptly, so taking some time to vet the plan publicly before implementing it is a reasonable approach.

The county Board of Elections voted last week to fold 62 precincts into others that already share the same polling place. That’s an easy call: The county will save nearly $200,000 through 2012 by not having to hire and train as many poll workers. In most polling places, the days of long lines are a memory. Needing fewer poll workers also will make easier the always-difficult job of recruiting enough of them for every election.

On the tougher question – whether to go through with the elimination and consolidation of another 59 precincts that would require changing their polling places – the board deadlocked in a 2-2 partisan tie, with Republicans favoring the consolidation and Democrats opposing it.

Democrats on the board agreed with Board of Elections Director William A. Anthony, also a Democrat, that change should wait until after this November’s election and that they need to know more about how the changes in polling places will affect voters.

Assistant Director Matthew M. Damschroder, who devised the plan, said more study won’t improve it and that the board needs to save money.

He’s right about the latter point, but a careful approach to precinct moves is warranted. Public input on the proposed changes could reveal problems and better ideas not already in the plan.

The board’s tie vote puts the matter in the hands of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who by law will cast a tie-breaker.

As she considers the issue, she should bear in mind the unmistakable trend toward early, absentee voting – 45.2 percent of Franklin County voters in May used that method, compared with 8.6 percent in May 2006, the first time it was widely available – and encourage all county election boards to start making the gradual move toward fewer precincts.

Adam Liptak, THE NEW YORK TIMES, 6/29/10. WASHINGTON DC – The Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed without comment a ruling upholding a ban on so-called soft-money contributions to political parties. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted to hear the case.

In March, a special three-judge panel of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the ban, in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is constitutional. But the panel expressed reservations about whether this aspect of that law, often called McCain-Feingold, could be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The soft-money ban limits individual contributions to political parties even if the money is to be spent on activities unrelated to federal elections.

The Supreme Court upheld the soft-money ban in a 2003 decision, McConnell v. F.E.C. It said there was “no meaningful distinction between the national party committees and the public officials who control them” and so “large soft-money contributions to national parties are likely to create actual or apparent indebtedness on the part of federal officeholders.”

That reasoning, left intact by Citizens United, was enough to dispose of the case, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who ordinarily sits as an appeals court judge, wrote for the panel. But he added that the position of national and local Republican groups that had challenged the ban “carries considerable logic and force.”

Judge Kavanaugh said that recent developments had left political parties in a comparatively weakened position.

“Under current law,” he wrote, “outside groups — unlike candidates and political parties — may receive unlimited donations both to advocate in favor of federal candidates and to sponsor issue ads. We recognize” the Republican National Committee’s “concern about this disparity, which, it argues, discriminates against the national political parties in political and legislative debates. But that is an argument for the Supreme Court or Congress.”

But the Supreme Court did not bite on Tuesday, leaving the question for another day. In a blog post, Richard L. Hasen, an authority on election law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said, “This is only temporary good news for those who think the soft-money ban is an important anticorruption component of federal campaign finance law.”

A challenge based on slightly different facts, he said, could well attract the votes of the other two members of the majority in Citizens United, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

AEI-BROOKINGS ELECTION REFORM PROJECT, 6/29/10. WASHINGTON DC — We launched the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project in June 2005 with the encouragement and financial support of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Five years later we bring the project to a close. This final issue of our electronic newsletter gives us an opportunity to reflect on the state of election administration in the United States almost a decade after the extended and controversial vote count in the 2000 presidential election and to suggest how additional changes in technology, election law and administrative practices might further strengthen American elections in the years ahead.

DOWNLOAD: Hope and Experience 2010

AGENDA FOR REFORM: Hope and Experience: Election Reform through the Lens of the AEI-Broookings Election Reform Project

Peter Hardin, GAVEL GRAB, 6/29/10. WASHINGTON DC – The Supreme Court has affirmed, with no comment, a lower court ruling that upheld a ban on unlimited contributions to political parties, called “soft money.”

The high court issued its order Tuesday, refusing a request by the Republican National Committee to consider ending the ban on unlimited donations by corporations, unions and others to national party committees, according to an Associated Press article.

A three-judge panel of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia found the ban constitutional in March. But the panel voiced reservations about squaring this part of the 2002 congressional rewrite of federal campaign finance law, called McCain-Feingold, with the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision this year, a New York Times blog reported.

Richard Hasen, a law professor, wrote in his Election Law Blog that the challenge before the Supreme Court amounted to a “very weak case for overturning the ban” and that the Tuesday order “is only temporary good news for those who think the soft money ban is an important anticorruption component of federal campaign finance law.”

Julie Carr Smyth, ASSOCIATED PRESS, 6/28/10. COLUMBUS — A challenge to racetrack slot machines was pulled from November’s ballot on Monday, and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland moved swiftly toward getting the budget-saving gambling devices up and running.

The Legislature had approved a plan from Strickland last summer to allow the lottery-run slot machines to raise as much as $933 million to balance the state’s current two-year budget.

LetOhioVote argued that the issue should be subject to a referendum of voters, and the state’s high court agreed. That ruling stopped the state from moving forward with the slots.

In a Monday letter to elections chief Jennifer Brunner withdrawing its petitions, LetOhioVote.org said it had achieved its goal of making sure important questions surrounding the new form of gambling were answered.

The group noted that Ohio voters authorized casinos in four big cities last fall and created a new Casino Control Commission too oversee them.

They also noted Strickland’s promise to seek a declaratory judgment asking the courts to settle an outstanding legal question about the devices: Are video slots banned under anti-gambling constitutional language, or allowed as an extension of the state lottery?

“In light of these subsequent developments, the Committee believes that its ultimate goal — that new gaming proposals be subjected to a thorough and thoughtful review — will be achieved,” committee members Tom Brinkman and David Hansen wrote.

Strickland plans to seek the declaratory judgment as soon as possible, said spokeswoman Amanda Wurst.

“We are finalizing our discussions with the attorney general’s office to determine how we best move forward in our legal arguments,” Wurst said.

Withdrawal of the referendum was widely anticipated as the state’s gambling landscape evolved over the past year.

The decision follows final action by the racing commission last week on the sale of two of the tracks to two out-of-state gambling giants, Las Vegas-based Harrah’s Entertainment and Wyossiming, Pa.-based Penn National Gaming.

Penn is the developer of two of four casinos Ohio voters approved last fall. Harrah’s has a contingency agreement with the developer of the other two, Rock Ventures, that could put it in charge of their operation.

Market watchers had theorized that ties between racetrack and casino interests would eliminate the business rivalry that likely contributed to LetOhioVote.org’s push for a vote on slots. The ballot issue and an associated lawsuit effectively sidelined the new machines just ahead of the 2009 push to legalize casinos.

A single company, Virginia-based New Models, is listed as the sole contributor to the LetOhioVote.org committee. Brunner has alleged the group’s campaign finance reports are masking the true contributors to the effort and is investigating.

Jim Siegel, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 6/28/10. COLUMBUS — Aside from the guy dancing in the frog outfit and a video featuring a chorus of bad singing, Statehouse advocates gathered today for a serious message to state lawmakers: Come back to work.

Legislators are out of town on a summer break that could last through the November election, if they do not find motivation to come back sooner.

The liberal Progress Ohio, Ohio Citizen Action, Common Cause Ohio and the Ohio Coalition for Homelessness and Housing in Ohio held a Statehouse news conference to urge lawmakers to return and get busy on some major legislation that was not completed before they departed more than three weeks ago. The bills involve redistricting, foreclosure assistance, payday-lending restrictions, corporate campaign disclosure and anti-employment discrimination for gays, among others.

“We are here today because the legislature is not,” said Brian Rothenberg of Progress Ohio, who, like many at the news conference, sported a T-shirt that read: “My lawmaker went to the Statehouse and all I got was this … Bullfrog.”

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 6/27/10. COLUMBUS — The battle between Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Genoa Township, and Democratic challenger Paula Brooks intensified last week. Republicans started the latest exchange when they questioned nearly $50,000 in campaign contributions to Brooks.

The donations came from individuals connected with businesses that were awarded contracts from Brooks and her fellow Franklin County commissioners. The contracts date to 2006, and most were approved unanimously by the threemember board.

“Brooks needs to come clean about the strong-arm tactics and threats she’s used to raise money for her campaign. Sooner or later, the truth will catch up with her,” said Kristen Frissora, Tiberi’s campaign manager.

Republicans say the contributions to Brooks fly in the face of an ethics pledge she signed, promising to avoid conflicts or impropriety.

The allegations of conflict and influence-peddling brought swift reaction from Democrats, who denied Brooks had any conflict and pointed to the more than $200,000 that Tiberi received from the banking and mortgage industries while serving on the House Financial Services Committee.

“Instead of looking out for consumers and taxpayers, Pat Tiberi used his position on the House Financial Services Committee to get big banking interests to fund his campaign war chest at the exact same time he pushed for greater deregulation of the banking and mortgage,” said Gabby Adler, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

According to opensecrets.org, which tracks campaign contributions, Tiberi received $239,000 from 2001 to 2006 from the banking and mortgage industry.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LWVOEF regularly tracks news an articles on the following impact topics: Campaign Finance Reform: Judicial Impartiality and Fairness; Election Law; Redistricting; and Accountability and Transparency. The information contained in the articles do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund or imPACT program but are simply provided as a tool to demonstrate public discussion on the topics.

All information included in articles should be verified with the source for accuracy as they are posted here as originally distributed.

Stephanie Warsmith, AKRON BEACON JOURNAL, 6/27/10. AKRON — In 1998, 63 percent of Akron voters approved a charter change adopting some of the most restrictive campaign-finance limits in the country.

Now, the group reviewing the city’s charter thinks these limits should be stripped.

The Charter Review Commission, which is finishing its once-a-decade review, is recommending the charter’s campaign-finance section be replaced with a directive that council pass a new campaign-finance ordinance.

Council would have 90 days to adopt the ordinance and would be required to review it every two years with a public hearing.

John Frank, a former Akron councilman who is serving on the commission for the fourth time, recommended the change. Frank thinks the limits — $100 for ward council candidates and $300 for at-large council and mayoral candidates — are too low
and don’t belong in the charter.

”It’s a pretty darn good compromise, I think,” said Frank, the commission’s co-chairman. ”We are taking care of the spirit of what the voters want. We’re not just taking it out. We’re saying there are problems with the way this was written.”

The campaign-finance change is among the more controversial recommendations the nine-member, bipartisan commission will make in its report to council Thursday. The commission is suggesting changes — some very minor — to 14 sections of the charter.

Council will have only a few weeks before its summer break in August to decide whether the commission’s suggestions should be on the Nov. 2 ballot.

The campaign-finance section of the charter, put on the ballot through a petition drive by the Dollars and Democracy citizens’ group, has resulted in years of litigation and debate.

Other cities’ limits

A review by Akron’s law department found that Cincinnati is the only other major Ohio city with contribution limits in its charter.

Cincinnati’s limits are much higher than Akron’s — $1,000 for individuals, $2,500 for political action committees and $10,000 for political parties or legislative campaign funds.

Other big Ohio cities, including Cleveland, have limits in their ordinances.

Cleveland’s charter was changed two years ago, requiring its city council to adopt an ordinance setting contribution limits. Last June, council approved an ordinance that included contributions limits of $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 to $8,000 for political action committees, depending on the membership of the committee.

Frank thinks Akron’s limits, especially 12 years after the charter provision was adopted, are so low, they would be deemed unconstitutional.

”To me, these limits actually prevent free speech and campaign dialogue,” said Frank, the last Republican to serve on Akron council. ”You don’t have the funds to get the message out to your voters.”

Summit County Republican Chairman Alex Arshinkoff agrees the limits need to be changed. He said they are ”beyond an incumbent-protection plan” and make it difficult for challengers.

”You can’t buy pencils for $100 and hand them out,” said Arshinkoff, who considered a petition drive to up the limits, but didn’t pursue it.

Charter vs. ordinance

Those who proposed the limits, though, think they belong in the charter.

”The law now is what was passed by voters,” said Greg Coleridge, director of the local American Friends Service Committee, who was among the Dollars and Democracy leaders. ”It’s harder to change if politicians don’t like what it is. An ordinance can be changed the next week after it’s passed. A charter change has to go through voters. That’s more democratic. Inclusive. Legitimate.”

Dollars and Democracy pushed for the low limits to address the perception that large donors could buy influence and to lessen an incumbent’s ability to amass campaign war chests, leveling the playing field for challengers.

Coleridge thinks the limits have worked. For instance, they prevented Mayor Don Plusquellic from giving large donations to council incumbents, as he did in the past.

Coleridge sent a letter to the commission, urging that the limits be maintained in the charter, while suggesting that they be indexed for inflation. He cited a 2009 study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school that found ”the lowest contribution limits, those set at $500 or below, enhance challengers’ ability to campaign against incumbents in state legislative races.”

Council’s stance

Council President Marco Sommerville, who is council’s representative on the commission, favors removing the charter language but warned the commission during its last meeting Friday that the majority of council might not.

”I don’t know if I can get it through,” he told them.

Council members recently had a spirited debate on a proposed ordinance that said the contribution limits don’t apply when candidates are raising money for purposes other than their own elections. Sommerville said this proposal will be put on hold, pending the outcome of the charter review discussion.

Frank plans to explain his rationale for removing the campaign-finance language to council at its July 19 meeting.

William Rich, a University of Akron law professor and commission member, said council may have to instead propose an increase to the limits, with a regular, inflationary increase.

Council is expected to begin its discussion of the proposals at its July 12 meeting.

Other changes proposed

Other possibly controversial charter changes the commission is recommending include:

• RECALLS: Increase the number of days to circulate petitions from 30 to 50, while removing a second, 20-day period to gather the required number of signatures. Prohibit a recall when an elected official has only six months remaining in his or her term or until six months after an unsuccessful recall attempt.
• INITIATIVES/REFERENDUMS: Boost the number of signatures required for initiatives and referendums, tying the threshold to the number of registered voters, rather than the number of people who actually voted. Voters approved this change for recalls last November. Initiatives are voter-recommended changes, while referendums are voter-initiated efforts to repeal council ordinances.
• PUBLIC UTILITIES: Specify that the requirement for voter approval before the sale or lease of any city-owned public utility applies only to water and sewer.

Opposition to some or all of these recommendations could come from several groups, including the American Friends Service Committee, Change Akron Now, which pushed for last year’s unsuccessful recall of Plusquellic, and Citizens for a Better Akron, headed by former Akron Councilman Ernie Tarle, the only Akron politician ever recalled from office.

At the same time, these groups plan to have a petition drive to get their own charter change on the ballot: requiring a public comment period during council meetings. The two tasks will force the activists to divide their efforts, though Coleridge said they will be united in a single goal.

”The common theme will be increasing or maintaining the ability for citizens to have direct democracy,” he said.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LWVOEF regularly tracks news an articles on the following impact topics: Campaign Finance Reform: Judicial Impartiality and Fairness; Election Law; Redistricting; and Accountability and Transparency. The information contained in the articles do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund or imPACT program but are simply provided as a tool to demonstrate public discussion on the topics.

All information included in articles should be verified with the source for accuracy as they are posted here as originally distributed.