What made Maureen O’Conner a good Ohio Supreme Court Justice?
- Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor is leaving the Ohio Supreme Court.
- Stu Harris says “courage” best describes her.
Stu Harris is an Ohio attorney and an adjunct professor at Franklin University
As time winds down on the first woman to serve as the chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O’Connor exemplifies all that is good in the third branch.
More:As she exits, Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor has plenty to say
Unfortunately, Ohio requires judges and justices to retire at age 70.
After joining the court in 2002, she participated in more than 2,500 oral arguments and wrote 421 majority opinions and 77 dissents.
Her tenure as chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court will be remembered for her integrity, independence, and fortitude.
Earlier in her tenure on the court, Chief Justice O’Connor reflected: “I will continue to champion what I know is right, and do so, I hope, with a sense of reason, respect, and civility….” Then she added clairvoyantly: “That’s how I’d like my time on the bench to be remembered.”
Tenacity and principles
Historically, O’Connor’s achievements are worth noting for both her length and breadth of service to Ohio.
Our view: Maureen O’Connor pulled a Liz Cheney and now ‘wicked’ lawmakers coming for her
Prior to serving the state of Ohio in both the executive and judicial branches, she served as a judge and the elected county prosecutor for Summit County.
After serving locally, Prosecutor O’Connor successfully stood for election as lieutenant governor with Gov. Bob Taft in 1998. Altogether, O’Connor has held statewide elected office longer than any woman in state history.
Looking back on her career, being the first women to serve as the chief justice is historic; however, her stands on the death penalty, bail, and most notably — gerrymandering — reflect her tenacity and principles.
Zachary Geiger:Where’s our Obi-Wan Kenobi? Ohio Republican playing role of evil Galactic Empire |Opinion
never wavering
In her last year, O’Connor’s position on redistricting drew the ire of many in her own party at a time when they should be celebrating her service to Ohio.
During her tenure, her resolve was certainly tested and never did the chief justice waver in her reason, respect or civility.
Signaling her willingness to take on significant challenges early in her tenure, O’Connor, during her swearing-in in 2011, called for a review of Ohio’s death penalty to comport with the American Bar Assocation death penalty review.
Our View:While your groceries go up, DeWine, LaRose, Huffman, Cupp waste millions to keep power
In so doing, she set up the Ohio Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio’s Death Penalty.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional for juveniles and the mentally disabled.
Next, the chief’s steadfast resolve was tested in the backlash to the decision in DuBose vs. McGuffey.
In DuBose, O’Connor, a Republican, joined the high court’s three Democrats — Jennifer Brunner, Melody J. Stewart, and — in finding that excessive bail is unconstitutional and when setting bail, a court should only evaluate whether the accused is a flight risk not the seriousness of the crime or public safety concerns.
Letters: Judge O’Connor ‘guilty’ of not tolerating ‘politically motivated hacks’
In seeking to place this issue in front of Ohio voters, opponents including legislators labelled DuBose “a really reckless decision” that disregarded public safety and “tied judges’ hands.”
In response, the chief justice, who clearly understands criminal prosecutions, noted: “[t]o manufacture fear and a continual pattern of jailing the people who can least afford release doesn’t protect society,” O’Connor said. “[i]t only assures that money determines the level of freedom and civil rights that someone enjoys.”
More:‘Tough on crime’ Republicans want voters to change Ohio Constitution on bail rules
Regarding the gerrymandering case, the chief again joined Brunner, Stewart, and Donnelly, with the court speaking primarily through Per Curium decisions in a continuous back and forth with the Ohio General Assembly.
Justice Donnelly summed it up succinctly: “It’s time to end gerrymandering—which protects party politics at the expense of the American people—and allow true democracy to flourish.”
In a concurring decision, Donnelly summarized the majority’s decisions as follows: “[These cases confirm] that relatively little has changed in how legislative-district plans are drawn. The design of legislative districts remains firmly in the grip of the majority party’s legislative politicians to the exclusion of all others.”
Defying ‘friends’
On this issue, amongst her friends in the legislature, the chief was mentioned early and often for impeachment.
Unfortunately, a Republican legislator texted his colleagues a Wheel of Fortune meme that said, “I would like to buy a vowel” with the phrase “Impeach Maureen” as the game show answer.
Meanwhile, at Ohio Republican headquarters, there is an empty space where her photo was previously.
A courageous journey
Meanwhile, the chief justice continues to eschew any descriptions of her using the word: courage anywhere in the accolades.
This in and of itself illustrates her judicial demeanor — always taking the high road and maintaining a sense of reason, respect, and civility.
Of course, there is much more to Justice O’Connor’s legacy on the bench than reflected in this article.
Among initiatives she has championed in Ohio and nationally are racial justice; attorney representation for the poor; sentencing fairness; cameras in courtrooms; and grand jury reform.
History continues to show that the costs of judicial independence come in many forms-personal, professional, and political.
Clearly, based on this standard, when lawyers and historians look back, they will begin their description of Chief Justice O’Connor with the word “courage.”
Stu Harris is an Ohio attorney and an adjunct professor at Franklin University
Read More: What made Maureen O’Conner a good Ohio Supreme Court Justice?