|
UNIONS
DIVIDED OVER WHICH DEMOCRATS TO BACK
The August 4 issue of The Political Edge reported on the split in the
labor movement at the national level and discussed how this division
worried many Democrats. Recent actions by the Ohio United Auto Workers
and the Cleveland AFL-CIO demonstrate why such a split concerns Democrats.
Presented with perhaps a golden opportunity to win some statewide elections
in Ohio next year, Democrats would like to see all of their core constituencies,
which include organized labor, on the same page. However, the two unions
have endorsed different candidates in the Democratic primary for the
U.S. Senate and may have different preferences in the Democratic gubernatorial
primary, as well.
Earlier this month, the Cleveland AFL-CIO, which is a federation of
over 146 labor unions in the Cleveland area, endorsed U.S. Rep. Sherrod
Brown’s Senate candidacy and U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland’s gubernatorial
candidacy. Just a few days later, the UAW endorsed Paul Hackett for
the U.S. Senate. Hackett is the personal injury attorney and Iraq war
veteran who narrowly lost a special congressional election in the heavily
Republican 2nd congressional district back in August. Hackett and Brown
face each other in the Democrat Senate primary; the winner will challenge
incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine. Lloyd Mahaffey, president
of the Ohio UAW, even went so far as to say that it wasn’t even
guaranteed that the UAW would support Brown over DeWine should Brown
capture the Democratic nomination.
Around the same time, Mahaffey also admitted that he has been urging
a fellow Toledoan, U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, to jump into the Democratic
gubernatorial primary. Should she decide to do so, the UAW and the Cleveland
AFL-CIO would be backing opposing candidates in that race, as well.
SIGNIFICANT
TURNOVER IN OHIO HOUSE ASSURED
In the October 12 issue of The Political Edge, we wrote about the resignation
from the Ohio House of Rep. Merle Kearns (R-Springfield) and the announcement
by Rep. Derrick Seaver (R-Minster) that he would not seek re-election
in 2006. Both Kearns and Seaver could have run for one more term next
year before facing term limits. Since October, four other incumbent
House members have also announced plans to forego seeking re-election
next year. The four are Reps. Mike Gilb (R-Findlay), Linda Reidelbach
(R-Columbus), Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster), and Barbara Sykes (D-Akron).
Two of them, Gilb and Schaffer, are running for another office rather
than for re-election. Gilb is a candidate for Congress, hoping to succeed
outgoing U.S. Rep. Mike Oxley in the 4th congressional district. Gilb
is one of five declared candidates in the May 2 GOP primary. The others
are Sen. Jim Jordan, Mansfield-Richland Area Chamber of Commerce President
Kevin Nestor, Richland County Commissioner Ed Olson, and Findlay businessman
James Stahl. Lima attorney Richard Siferd is the only announced Democrat.
Schaffer is running for the Senate in the 31st district, where incumbent
Sen. Jay Hottinger (R-Newark) is term-limited. He is currently the only
official candidate of either party.
Both Reidelbach and Sykes have said they don’t plan to seek another
elected office and that it’s simply time to do something else.
Of the four seats that will be left open as a result, three are almost
certain to remain in the hands of the party that currently occupies
them. Only Reidelbach’s seat could be in play in ’06. Her
Franklin County district, the 21st, contains Worthington and parts of
northern Columbus and leans Republican. Reidelbach was re-elected in
both 2002 and 2004 with less than 55 percent of the vote.
The Franklin County Republican Party Central Committee meets on January
11 and will endorse a candidate on that day in hopes of avoiding a primary.
At least four candidates are pursuing the party’s endorsement,
including Kevin Bacon, government affairs representative for Farmers
Insurance, Worthington realtor Ted Oatts, John Stacy, legislative aide
to Rep. John Willamowski (R-Lima), and Bill Todd. Todd is an attorney
with Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and serves as the Ohio Chamber’s
general counsel. At least two Democrats, public school teacher Jean
Ackerman and Dean Hernandez, had previously declared their interest
in challenging Reidelbach. It remains to be seen whether either will
run and whether or not other candidates jump into the race now that
the seat will be open.
The decisions by Gilb, Reidelbach, Schaffer and Sykes means there are
now nine incumbents who could seek re-election next year to the House
but won’t. In addition to these four and Kearns and Seaver, Reps.
Chuck Blasdel (R-E. Liverpool), who is running for Congress, Mary Taylor
(R-Green), who is running for State Auditor, and Claudette Woodard (D-Cleveland
Heights), who is running for the Senate, won’t be back, either.
Factor in 14 incumbents facing term-limits, and House turnover is approaching
25 percent before any elections are even held.
And, that number may climb even higher still. There are several incumbents
that are reportedly considering campaigns for another office, and others
that have appeared on published lists of potential running mates for
one or more of the 2006 gubernatorial candidates.
ONE
EXPORT WE CAN DO WITHOUT
Throughout the fall campaign for and against Issues 2-5, the package
of so-called election reforms, both sides tried to make an issue out
of support the other had from interests not based in Ohio. Reform Ohio
Now (RON), the collection of labor unions and liberal special interest
groups that placed the issues on the November ballot in the first place,
ridiculed Ohio First for originally incorporating in the state of Delaware.
The Ohio First Voter Education Fund was the group formed to defeat Issues
2-5. Ohio First, in turn, accused RON of being largely funded by “out-of-state
special interests.”
As it turns out, it was the proponent campaigns that were financed almost
entirely by out-of-state groups and individuals. RON reported raising
$2.6 million and spending $2.5 million. Of the $2.6 million raised,
just over $2 million, or almost 80 percent, came from out-of-state donors.
Citizens to End Corruption, another group formed to help pass Issues
2-5, raised $2 million and spent $1.9 million. All but $300,000 of the
$2 million raised came from out of state.
Ohio First outspent both RON and Citizens to End Corruption combined,
raising $5.1 million and spending $5 million. Of the amount raised,
$4.2 million of it, or 82 percent, came from within Ohio.
In the end, whether money was or was not imported to Ohio to fund these
campaigns isn’t important. What is important is that, due to how
resoundingly they were defeated by Ohio voters, these ideas aren’t
likely to be exported to other states, where business groups and others
would be forced to spend their money to fight against them.
THANKS
TO BUSINESS, ACTIVIST JUDGES ON THE RUN IN ILLINOIS
Like Ohio, Illinois is another state that has seen its economic climate
suffer as a result of an activist state supreme court. And, also like
Ohio, Illinois businesses, led by the Illinois Chamber of Commerce,
took action to remedy the problem by getting involved in judicial politics.
In 2004, a Chamber-backed candidate defeated an activist appeals court
judge for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court.
Not only did the victory help improve the makeup of the state’s
supreme court, other judicial candidates are now having to factor in
the prospect of being opposed by the business community in their elections,
as well.
Fearing he may not be able to secure the 60 percent of the vote necessary
to win a retention election, an incumbent Madison County judge is trying
to do an end around in his bid to keep his seat on the bench. He has
announced that, rather tan file to run for retention, he will instead
file to run for his “open” seat. This means, in effect, he’ll
have an actual opponent but will only need 50 percent plus one of the
votes in order to win another term.
Madison County, by the way, was rated the #1 “judicial hellhole”
in America in both 2003 and 2004 by the American Tort Reform Association.
AMERICANS
AGREE: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM A CRISIS
A recent survey done for the American Bar Association Journal reveals
that a majority of Americans are generally dissatisfied with the nation’s
judiciary. The same survey showed that Americans believe the level of
judicial activism has reached a crisis.
The survey was conducted in early September by the Opinion Research
Corp. Respondents were read statements critical of the judiciary made
by current public officials and asked if they agreed or disagreed with
the opinions expressed in the statements.
The two statements that a majority of respondents agreed with were:
1. “Judicial activism…seems to have reached a crisis. Judges
routinely overrule the will of the people, invent new rights and ignore
traditional morality.”
2. “Opinions should be in line with voters’ values, and judges
who repeatedly ignored those values should be impeached.”
Given that these statements refer primarily to the federal judiciary,
one wonders what the results of this poll would be if similar questions
were asked about the Ohio judiciary.
Recent Ohio Supreme Court elections have not been focused on “values”
or “morality” questions, and there have been relatively few
Supreme Court decisions here that have captured the public’s attention
the way several federal court decisions have. (The U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals decision that deemed the phrase “under God”
in our Pledge of Allegiance an unconstitutional endorsement of religion,
for example.)
However, given that the Ohio Supreme Court was plagued for a decade
by judicial activism, the judicial philosophies of the candidates has
been a relevant campaign topic. And, on this subject, the actions of
Ohio voters demonstrated that they likely agree with the first statement:
out of the six most recent Supreme Court campaigns spanning the last
two election cycles, only one candidate that can be described as a judicial
activist won his election.
A
NOVEL WAY TO CHASE AMBULANCES
A personal injury attorney in New York City has pioneered a new way
to solicit clients: by using converted school buses as mobile law offices.
He claims they are simply an outreach and a service to clients who have
difficulty traveling. The former New York state assemblyman also admits
that the buses raise his firm’s profile and that he typically receives
a walk-in just about every time he takes one of the buses out on the
road.
Our question: what would happen if one of these mobile law offices struck
a pedestrian?
|
