Even though all six Ohio Supreme Court candidates were invited to speak at a recent forum held in partnership by the City Club of Cleveland and the Ohio Debate Commission, only the Democratic candidates showed up.
The three Democratic candidates — incumbent Justice Michael Donnelly, incumbent Justice Melody Stewart, and Judge Lisa Forbes — spoke at the forum on Tuesday. Ohio Statehouse Bureau Chief Karen Kasler moderated the forum.
Republican Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Megan Shanahan, Republican Justice Joseph Deters and Republican Judge Dan Hawkins were not at the forum.
The three Supreme Court races are Donnelly against Shanahan, Stewart vs. Deters, and Forbes against Hawkins. Deters is not running for his current seat and is instead going against Stewart for a full six-year term. Hawkins and Forbes are vying for Deters’ open seat, a term that will expire on Dec. 31, 2026.
The Ohio Supreme Court currently has a 4-3 Republican majority. This election could either flip the court Democratic or Republicans will add to their numbers.
Donnelly and Stewart were elected to the Ohio Supreme Court in 2018. This is Forbes first running for Ohio Supreme Court.
“I’m running because I want to do my part to make sure that the Supreme Court is a firewall that protects our democracy, the rule of law and your rights,” Forbes said. “I stepped up to the plate because I’m concerned about some rulings. I’m concerned about the way in which the Court has the power to define words and to interpret laws that may be more result oriented than true to the law or to the intent behind the law.”
Donnelly and Stewart did not miss an opportunity to point out their opponents’ absences.
“I implore (Deters) to just show up anywhere with me — a street corner, a candidates forum, an editorial board, anywhere, and just discuss the substance of our candidacies,” Stewart said.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Deters to the Ohio Supreme Court in January 2023, despite having no previous experience as a judge.
Donnelly also noted his opponent’s absence while discussing bond issues and the 2022 DuBose case, in which he wrote the concurring opinion.
“If someone’s a threat to public safety, you should have a hearing and hold them with no bond,” he said. “Don’t set it at some astronomical amount that you think they can’t make.”
Donnelly noted his opponent Shanahan wasn’t there to discuss the subject. “I would like to talk to my opponent about that,” he said. “She doesn’t want to talk.”
Stewart, who was also on the Ohio Supreme Court at that time, said that decision was “the absolute dog whistle for the 2022 election for the Supreme Court.”
“That was a case that totally misconstrued the law,” she said.
DuBose and a co-defendant were charged with murder from an armed robbery. The state asked the judge to impose $1.5 million in bail at the bond hearing. Prosecutors highlighted the type of crime, fears of the victim’s family members and DuBose’s potential flight risk since he was arrested in Las Vegas and returned to Ohio to face trial.
However, DuBose argued that setting bail beyond what he could financially afford essentially denied him bail and violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The appeals court reduced the bail to $500,000 and put non-financial requirements in place including turning over his passport, agreeing to 24-hour house arrest with electronic monitoring, and no contact whatsoever with the victim’s family.
The state appealed the bail reduction to the Ohio Supreme Court, who sided with the appeals court — pointing to judicial rules that draw a distinction between financial and non-financial conditions of release.
By making this ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court made a distinction between the dollar amount and other conditions of bail, like wearing an ankle monitor. Regardless of the financial conditions, judges could still consider risk to public safety and order a defendant held without bond.
Nevertheless, Ohio Republican lawmakers drew up a constitutional amendment for the 2022 election that requires Ohio judges to consider factors such as public safety, the seriousness of the crime, the person’s criminal background, and a person’s likelihood of returning to court when setting bail.
Seventy-eight percent of Ohioans voted for it.
“(Bond and bail) is to allow release and ensure return for your hearings of the court,” Stewart said. “So if you set an amount that is unattainable, you’re not allowing release. And if someone is dangerous and poses a threat to public safety, how about we just keep them pretrial with no bond?”
Forbes said the situation is ironic.
“The people who recognize that dangerous criminals should, under no circumstances, be given an opportunity to be released pretrial, which is what Justice Stewart and Justice Donnelly just said, are the ones being tagged as soft on crime,” she said. “Hard on crime and protective of the community is making the assessment that says under no circumstances may you be released pretrial.”
The Ohio Supreme Court’s recent 4-3 ruling that boneless chicken wings can have bones in them also came up during Tuesday’s forum.
“The word boneless was defined as a matter of law to mean it’s a cooking style and was taken to mean that you should expect bones if something is labeled as boneless, and I think that’s concerning,” Forbes said. “If I am elected to the Supreme Court and I need to define a word, I promise you that I will use a dictionary.”
Partisan races
A 2021 law added party labels to Ohio Supreme Court races, which had previously been nonpartisan. All three Democrats objected to this Tuesday.
“If we’re going to have an elected judiciary, it should be nonpartisan,” Donnelly said. “I’d like to see us move towards some type of retention system where we don’t have to run each other against each other and raise money. … I don’t take an oath to any political party.”
Stewart agreed, saying the partisan labels are politicizing the Supreme Court even more.
Forbes said it gives the idea justices are political actors.
“The biggest concern I have about it is that it creates the impression that perhaps affiliation with a party is going to impact an outcome of a case, and that degrades the public confidence in the courts as a whole, and that’s very disturbing,” she said.
All three Democrats also disagreed with legislating from the bench.
“The law is the law,” Donnelly said.
Forbes said her job is to apply the law, not create new ones.
“Legislating from the bench is creating new laws to achieve a particular outcome,” she said.
Stewart said it’s up to her to say what the law is, not what it should be.
“There are times we have to make decisions and vote on a judgment based on what the law says and we hold our nose doing it,” she said.
Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: [email protected]. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.
