New Ohio Supreme Court May Change Rulings on Education Funding

The results of a heavily financed, contentious Supreme Court election in Ohio, indicate that the court may, for the first time, rule in favor of the defendant State of Ohio in the pending DeRolph school funding case. Since 1997, the court has produced three 4-3 decisions in which nearly every judge has been in the majority at least once. This year, however, Justice Andrew Douglas, 70, who often sided with the majority in favor of the plaintiffs, had to retire because of his age, and Lieutenant Governor Maureen O'Connor, who emphasized her conservative credentials, won the open court seat. Incumbent Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton was reelected.

Although the Supreme Court candidates often avoided explicitly saying how they would rule on issues, O'Connor has implied that she would decide that Ohio's school funding system is already constitutional. A variety of measures enacted by the legislature since 1997 have increased funding and are addressing one of the four issues, facilities funding, of the original case, but the plaintiffs, led by the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, claim that these step have failed to reform the other three: over-reliance on property taxes, forced borrowing, and inadequate foundation funding. Following her victory, O'Connor said that she eagerly anticipates giving the people of Ohio "a Supreme Court that is fair, impartial and respects the authority of the governor." Governor Taft, who was re-elected on Tuesday, is the defendant in DeRolph. In 2001, he asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling that ordered the State to increase school funding in certain ways in order to create a finance system that complies with the State Constitution.

This is the second consecutive Supreme Court election (the last was in 2000) in which both sides expressed chagrin at the amount of special-interest money that was poured into the campaign. Physicians and the business community put millions into ads for the Republicans, while trial lawyers and labor unions spent heavily for the Democrats. Candidates appear on the Supreme Court ballots without party designations, but interest groups are permitted to pay for so-called "issue ads," which do not include the words "elect" or "defeat" but say or imply that a certain candidate will vote for or against a certain issue. Stratton claimed that she was subject to personal attacks based on her record, and a number of groups across the State are calling for judicial election reform or for Ohio Supreme Court judges to be appointed rather than elected.

Prepared November 6, 2002