|
TURNING
THE TABLES ON POOR TURNOUT
It took three election cycles of political involvement, but the Ohio
Chamber – and the state’s entire business community –
achieved our goal of restoring balance and fairness to the Ohio Supreme
Court. The evidence for this lies in fact that the Court is no longer
controlled by an activist majority.
Almost as important, we think we’ve also been successful in raising
awareness of the fact that the decisions made by the state’s highest
court have an impact on every aspect of our lives, including our economic
climate. The evidence for success in this area comes from a marked increase
in the percentage of voters marking their ballots in Supreme Court races.
The chart below shows ballot drop-off in Ohio Supreme Court elections.
That is, it shows the percentage of voters who vote for whatever is
at the top of the ticket – President or Governor – but then
leave their ballot blank for Supreme Court.
The
recent high-water mark for ballot drop-off occurred in 1996, when one
out of every four presidential race voters didn’t vote in the Court
races. The trend line improved significantly in the subsequent three
elections – corresponding to the Ohio Chamber’s increased
focus on the Court. Drop-off reached a 22-year low in 2002, when less
than nine percent of gubernatorial voters failed to vote for Supreme
Court.
Since we released our first P.a.C.E. Business Evaluation of the Supreme
Court in 1996, we have continuously expanded and improved our communications
concerning the role and importance of the Ohio Supreme Court. But we
aren’t the only ones to have done so. Other business organizations,
local chambers of commerce, and numerous individual companies have as
well.
In response to this coordinated effort by the Ohio business community,
other groups with a different agenda – personal injury lawyers,
organized labor, educators and school administrators, to name a few
– have done so, too.
Given the tremendous significance of this year’s Supreme Court
campaigns, the business community will need to at least duplicate its
efforts of two years ago. Voters will choose four members of the seven-member
Court this fall – a majority in one fell swoop. And, like they
were in both 2000 and 2002, the 2004 Ohio Supreme Court elections will
be the most competitive statewide campaigns and, thus, likely dominate
media attention in the state.
The re-election of Justice Paul Pfeifer, who is unopposed, is assured.
Therefore, the philosophical makeup of the Court will be determined
by the outcome of the other three races. If at least two of the three
OCCPaC-endorsed candidates – Chief Justice Tom Moyer, Justice Terrence
O’Donnell, and Judge Judith Lanzinger – win, the current balance
on the Court will remain. If two of the three lose, we’ll be back
to the days of adverse 4-3 decisions and majority opinions written by
Justices like Pfeifer and Alice Resnick.
The key to success this year, like it was in 2002, will be drop-off.
As the chart demonstrates, ballot drop-off is typically higher in presidential
years, as more voters who don’t know or care enough about the judicial
candidates to vote for the Court turnout to cast their ballot for president.
With so much at stake, the Ohio Chamber will again be leading the fight
to provide educational materials and resources to all Ohio voters through
our www.OhioBusinessVotes.org
website. The purpose of www.OhioBusinessVotes.org
is to educate Ohioans about the economic effects of legislative and
judicial actions and to prepare them to participate in the political
process in an informed manner – minimizing the potential for them
to leave their ballots blank in judicial races. This site provides all
of the tools needed to register to vote, find out how candidates stand
on business issues, and track the performance of Ohio elected officials.
We encourage you to check out our site, and to implement a plan to direct
your employees there, as well. At the site, you’ll find our latest
Business Evaluation, hard copies of which we can also make available
to you for distribution.
Finally, P.a.C.E. staff will be traveling around the state to give election
year political briefings focusing on the Ohio Supreme Court. If your
company or trade association would like to schedule an election briefing
for your employees or members, please contact us at klake@ohiochamber.com
or cmcconville@ohiochamber.com.
GERRYMANDERS
LIVE ON
In a decision you probably heard nothing about, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided in late April in the case of Vieth v. Jubelirer that
the congressional redistricting plan passed by the Pennsylvania legislature
in 2001 was constitutional. The case is significant because the challenge
to the Pennsylvania redistricting plan was based on the theory that
partisan gerrymandering should be prohibited.
Prior to redistricting, the Pennsylvania congressional delegation had
11 Republicans and 10 Democrats. Following the 2002 elections, the Republicans
had 12 and the Democrats only 7. The plan crafted by the Republican-controlled
Pennsylvania legislature combined four Democratic districts into two,
created two new solid Republican districts, and pushed a Democrat and
Republican incumbent lawmaker into one district that favored the GOP.
The plaintiffs in this case, Pennsylvania Democratic voters, argued
that partisan gerrymandering could be unconstitutional, that the Equal
Protection Clause was violated when partisan objectives are overarching,
and that it is unconstitutional to create districts that would consistently
elect a majority of candidates of one party when that same party gathers
less than half the total votes cast statewide.
The Court ruled that the issues raised in the case were not justiciable,
i.e. issues not properly resolved by the Court. As a result of the Court’s
decision, it is unquestionably legal for state legislatures to utilize
the redistricting process for partisan advantage, configuring districts
in virtually any fashion. The sole exception would be racially motivated
configurations.
|
