Currently, Ohio law prohibits any candidate whose age is more than 70 to seek election to a position of judge. Someone elected at age 70 would be age 76 by the end of his or her term. Issue 1 proposes to add five years to the mandatory retirement age and if Issue 1 passes, judges may seek election up to age 75. And, someone elected at age 75, who completes a full term of 6 years, will be age 81 by the end of his or her term.

The answer to the question, “How old is too old?” is different for each individual. The current law allows a judge to serve until age 76, and for some judges, that may be an age well past his or her capacity to do a competent job. But, many judges at age 76 are full of vitality, and many at age 81 would make great judges.

I’m voting “Yes” for Issue 1, because, the reality is that in Ohio judges are elected to their positions by the voting public. If there is a reason to believe a judge is serving incompetently, or a reason to believe that a judge should not be reelected, then this decision should be revealed and discussed as part of the election process. What is needed is a means to better inform the public about the work of judges, so the public can make more educated choices.

The bigger question that Issue 1 raises is: Does our curent system of choosing judges make sense? Should the selection of judges be determined by an uninformed and incompetent public? In my view, we need to brainstorm to find a better system. As it is, the public has little information with which to evaluate judges or candidates seeking to be elected to the position of judge. We need a system that will give the public better information — maybe a system of peer review, or a system of citizen nonpartisan panels empowered to make evaluations. We need to look at the big picture and brainstorm meaningful systemic change that will improve the quality of our judges, regardless of age.

From an article By MARC KOVAC

The Ohio State Bar Association also has endorsed the Issue 1. In a released statement, the group’s president, Carol Seubert Marx, said “The times have changed, life expectancy has changed and expectations of life in the workforce have changed. Extending the age limit to 75 would allow for more experienced judges to stay on the bench and benefit the judiciary.”

She added, “So what happens if Issue 1 fails? Up to 10 percent of Ohio’s judges could be forced to retire in the next six years resulting in the loss of tremendous judicial experience in Ohio’s courtrooms.”

But opponents of Issue 1 question the value of extending the age limit.

The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association is urging a “no” vote on the issue, saying that the wording of it could allow judges to serve until they are 82 years old or older.

“The provision would allow for judges serving into their eighties,” John Murphy, executive director of the prosecutors association, said in a released statement. “While some senior judges are valued and effective, it is not the case with all. The potential for limits to an elderly judge’s schedule and capacity is not good for an active courtroom.”

He added, “Ohio prosecutors think the current age limit is appropriate and should be retained, even if it keeps some capable, experienced candidates off the bench. In our experience, many prosecutors have practiced before older judges who should not have been serving.”

The Democratic Party, which also opposes, questioned the politics behind the move.

According to a released statement from the group’s executive committee, “This extension would increase the length of service for individuals already entrenched on the bench. Moreover, State Issue 1 is likely to perpetuate a 6-to-1 Republican imbalance on the Ohio Supreme Court and similar imbalances on lower courts.”

I’ve changed my mind. In Kettering Ward 4, until just the last couple of days, I was set to vote for the long serving incumbent, Bruce Duke, to return to the Kettering City Council. But, now, I’ve decided to vote for the challenger, Lisa Crosley. What pushed me to this decision was Duke’s refusal to respond to Mrs. Crosley’s eight point plan. Frankly, his refusal left me flabbergasted.

Yes, I know that Mrs. Crosley is aligned with the Dayton Tea Party. As the elected Democratic Party Ward 4 leader, and Vice President of the South of Dayton Democratic Club, my fellow Democrats, I realize, generally, expect me to oppose the growth of Tea Partyism here in Kettering, and will probably be surprised that I’m voting for Mrs. Crosley. But, I hope they will hear me out.

Two years ago, I sought election to the Kettering School Board. My basic premise then, as now: We need to return to the notion that a local system of public education should be under local control. We need a school board that will have some gumption to show leadership and represent the general community, not simply the educational establishment. We need a school board that will create a long term vision that will develop Kettering’s capacity for transforming public education.

We can’t get such a school board until we first of all get a vitalized and active citizenry that decides to work together as a meaningful community. Local control is only possible and only makes sense in the context of a vitalized community. We belong to our small groups within the community — churches, clubs, political parties — but we really don’t have a Kettering community. In this election season we had one public meeting of “Meet the Candidates,” attended almost entirely by friends and family members of the candidates, along with elected leaders. This election season is another missed opportunity: we’ve failed to have a community discussion about our public schools or our city government.

I was impressed by the thoughtfulness of Mrs. Crosley’s campaign materials.  I loved her headline, that she seeks to offer leadership focused on, “Thinking About Tomorrow.” Preparing her materials, I’m sure, was time consuming and expensive. Mrs. Crosley should be praised for her efforts, for her civic minded action and specific proposals. If our community had any vitality, these proposals would be discussed and analyzed by informed and active citizens.

Most Kettering campaigns simply involve yard signs and harmless slogans. I appreciate the fact that Mrs. Crosley is offering some substantial ideas. The point is not whether, or not, her proposals should be adopted. The point is, Mrs. Crosley’s campaign heralds this news: Someone cares enough about the future of Kettering to try to start a valuable and needed conversation. Someone cares enough to attempt to create dialogue, cares enough to attempt to create a community of people who will actually discuss ideas.

Mr. Duke’s regal response to me — “I choose not to discourse on a blog” — is baffling. If not on the internet, where does he propose to have discourse? My conclusion is that Mr. Duke is making a political calculation and believes that simply ignoring Mrs. Crosley is smart politics. But Kettering doesn’t need leadership built on “smart politics,” we needs leadership willing to do the hard work needed to build strong and thoughtful community. I see addressing Mrs. Crosley’s proposals as a way to begin a valuable discussion. Mr. Duke’s refusal to do so, I feel, deserves to be protested. So, he has lost my vote.

A victory for Mrs. Crosley, I believe, would inspire meaningful discussion in Kettering and from such discussion could arise a better and more connected community. Building a vitalized community of thoughtful citizens is the key to Kettering’s future. I’ve surprised myself. In Ward 4, I’ve decided a vote for Lisa Crosley for Kettering City Council as the best choice to help Kettering move forward.

From two years ago:

• Incumbents’ Refusal To Participate In Public Forum Reveals The Weak State Of Our Democracy, By Mike Bock, on October 29th, 2009
• At Kettering’s LWV Community Meeting, Incumbent School Board Members Defend “ZERO Tax Increase” Ad, By Mike Bock, on October 22nd, 2009
• The Kettering School Board Election Is A Contest Between Two Very Different Points Of View, By Mike Bock, on October 20th, 2009

Issue 3 gives Ohioans the opportunity to amend Ohio’s constitution. The issue is headlined in such a way, it is almost certain to get a “Yes” vote. (See PDF) The headline says: “Proposed Constitutional Amendment: To Preserve The Freedom Of Ohioans To Choose Their Health Care and Health Care Coverage”

It seems unlikely that Ohioans will vote down the chance to preserve their freedom, but retired Judge William O’Neill warns against a “Yes” vote. O’Neill is a retired judge and says he has a unique perspective because he also has worked as a Registered Nurse. O’Neill writes, “In the name of conservatism, a small segment of the population is now inviting the rest of us to shoot ourselves in the foot under the theory that we must immediately amend the Ohio Constitution. The folly is evident on its face.”

He warns of unexpected consequences of Issue 3 and writes, “History has shown that the amending of our Constitution must be discouraged under all but the most compelling circumstances.”

Judge O’Neill says Issue 3, if passed, will not stop the implementation of the Affordable Health Act, “Obamacare,” because state law cannot overturn federal law. He warns, however, that this change to the constitution may tie the hands of future Ohio Assemblies to pass needed laws. He writes,

The amendment would grandfather in all laws and rules on the books as of the magical date of March 19, 2010. But a lot has happened in America since 2010, and this Amendment attempts to block change in our health care system from this day forward. Not to change or repair past practices, but to block change in the future. I don’t have a crystal ball to predict the future but, unfortunately, our healthcare system may have new or amplified problems in the future. Issue 3 would prevent future lawmakers in Ohio – regardless of party affiliation – from considering a vast amount rationally-based legislation to correct those problems.

Everyone in Ohio knows that health care in America and Ohio has become a big problem from a financial standpoint. We are simply spending too much money for too little coverage, and nowhere is that more evident than in Medicaid. In the 1970s as a nation we made a decision to guarantee high quality medical care to the least fortunate among us; and as a nation we made a decision that this federal act of compassion shall be paid for by the states. And from the beginning the program has been plagued with wildly exploding costs, use and abuse. And today it remains a giant part of every state budget. But, if Issue 3 passes, the Ohio Legislature’s hands will be tied as it will be prevented from attempting to correct the problem. …

Issue 3, if passed, will amend the Ohio Constitution to prevent ALL changes in addressing health care in Ohio… to the detriment of ALL taxpayers. This goes beyond throwing out the baby with the bath water. It even goes beyond shooting oneself in the foot. This is economic suicide in the name of freedom of choice in health care. The question remains. Freedom for whom?

In conclusion, there is no question there is ample room for disagreement on how to rein in health care costs in America and Ohio. And that is why we have legislative bodies. To resolve policy differences. But the Ohio Constitution, in all due respect, does not belong in this particular fight. The stakes are too high. I strongly encourage the citizens of Ohio to vote “NO” on Issue 3