Why Is the Chief Justice of Ohio's Supreme Court Lobbying Against Sentencing Reforms?

Justice Maureen O'Connor has intervened repeatedly in the legislative process.


Ohio lawmakers trying to pass sentencing reforms have faced opposition this year from the usual suspects, such as lobbyists for prosecutors and law enforcement. But they've also run into vocal criticism from an unexpected source: Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor.

It is unusual—and it may damage the objectivity and independence of the court system—for sitting Supreme Court justices to lobby for or against legislation. But that hasn't stopped O'Connor from jumping into the middle of the legislature's deliberations over a pair of criminal justice reform proposals. In newspaper op-eds, public appearances, and letters to members of the state Senate, O'Connor, who happens to be a former prosecutor and lobbyist, has repeatedly argued against a bill that would downgrade some felony drug possession charges to misdemeanor offenses.

O'Connor, of course, has a First Amendment right to speak about legislation and to criticize the legislative process if she wants. But she seems to recognize the unusual nature of her advocacy.

"You may think it unprecedented to receive a letter from me, as Chief Justice, that addresses my concerns about [Senate Bill 3]," O'Connor wrote in a December 3 missive to state legislators, a copy of which was obtained by Reason. But, she adds, it is "my duty" to speak out about issues that "affect the administration of criminal justice and the operation of Ohio's courts."












Sen. John Eklund (R–Munson), the sponsor of the bill in question and one of the recipients of O'Connor's letter, agrees that it's unusual to get a letter from a sitting Supreme Court justice advocating against a specific piece of legislation.

Eklund's bill is one of two major criminal justice reform measures that have been jockeying for legislators' support in Columbus this year. He says says it's rooted in the idea that people deserve a chance to prove they can learn from past mistakes.

"We want people to get better and move on to lead productive lives, while also ensuring that traffickers are arrested and stay behind bars," he explains.

One way Eklund's bill would do that is by reclassifying low-level drug possession crimes, which are now charged as felonies in Ohio, as misdemeanors. That would give some individuals convicted of those nonviolent offenses the opportunity to seek treatment rather than being incarcerated, and it would not limit future job prospects in the same way a felony conviction does.

At the same time that she's been lobbying against Senate Bill 3, O'Connor has been pushing the legislature to approve the other criminal justice bill it was considering this year: House Bill 1. In her December 3 letter, O'Connor highlights the House bill's support from law enforcement groups—she specifically name-checks the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association—as a reason to prefer it to the Senate proposal.

The House bill also seeks to shunt some drug offenders into treatment programs, but it does not reclassify some drug felonies as misdemeanors. O'Connor and others claim that the cudgel of a felony charge is necessary to get offenders into treatment.

"Downgrading the underlying offenses will only reduce one of these incentives and the likelihood of a lasting recovery," the chief justice wrote in a September 19 letter to Eklund.

There's no law or rule that says judges can't lobby for legislation. Indeed, Jonas Anderson, a professor of law at American University who has written about judicial ethics and lobbying, points out that there are times when judicial input can offer important information to legislators, particularly when they can provide technical information about the workings or needs of the justice system.

But judges should be careful about crossing the line into pushing or opposing specific policies, he adds.

"We think of the judicial system as a place where you can get a decision about a dispute that's free from political considerations," says Anderson.

In lobbying against Senate Bill 3, O'Connor has indeed made some technical arguments about how the court system would operate under the new sentencing guidelines proposed by the law. But her objections are overwhelmingly directed at the underlying policy.

In that September 19 letter to Eklund, for example, O'Connor spends two pages arguing that 81 percent of Ohioans sentenced to prison for low-level drug offenses last year had prior criminal convictions and therefore would not be eligible for the treatment programs Eklund is proposing to use as an alternative to jail time. (Of course that means 19 percent of those offenders—more than 300 people, by O'Connor's own count—would stand to benefit.)

That argument, like the one she makes about what steps are necessary to get drug offenders into treatment programs, are not dispassionate analyses of the workings of the judicial system—such as, for example, informing lawmakers about how a policy change might affect judges' workloads. Instead, they are fundamentally prescriptive arguments rooted in policy preferences.

O'Connor has a long history in Ohio politics, both behind the bench and as a lobbyist. It's that career that might best explain her involvement in the debate over sentencing reform.

Before becoming the first female chief justice in the state's history, O'Connor was a magistrate and then a judge for the state's Court of Common Pleas. She resigned from the bench in 1993 to become a prosecutor in Summit County. There, according to her official state Supreme Court bio, she "aggressively prosecuted repeat offenders, violent criminals, and public officials who committed ethical violations or improprieties, and lobbied the General Assembly for tougher laws on rape and gang-related offences." She won accolades from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other victims' rights groups that advocate for harsher penalties within the criminal justice system. From there, she was elected as lieutenant governor in 1998.

O'Connor returned to judicial work in 2003 after being elected to the state Supreme Court the previous year. She was elected as the court's chief justice in 2010, and re-elected to a second term in that position in 2016. O'Connor, who is 68, will be forced to retire when her current term expires in 2022 under Ohio's law prohibiting judges from running for re-election if they are over 70.

After a career defined by criss-crossing the dividing lines between branches of government—and by advocating for tougher criminal justice legislation both from inside the executive branch and as an outside lobbyist—O'Connor apparently thinks it appropriate to tell state lawmakers what to do. Indeed, this is not the first time she's tried to stamp out sentencing reforms. In 2018, she penned op-eds telling voters to oppose a ballot measure that would have reduced drug possession penalties in order to keep low-level nonviolent offenders out of the prison system. Passage of the measure would be "catastrophic" for Ohio, she wrote. Not exactly the sort of dispassionate analysis one would hope to read from the head of the state's highest court.

Voters listened, and they defeated that proposal at the ballot box last year.

As 2019 drew to a close, O'Connor has amplified her opposition to SB 3. Two weeks ago, she authored an op-ed arguing that transforming some drug possession felonies into misdemeanors "would be a serious mistake." She has used speaking appearances at legal forums to litigate her opposition to the sentencing reforms included in SB 3.

Despite a flurry of legislative activity in December, state lawmakers ultimately punted consideration of SB 3 until next year.

By using her authority as the state's top jurist to parrot talking points from prosecutors and law enforcement lobbyists, O'Connor may yet succeed in stomping criminal justice reform efforts, but she also undermines her own credibility and that of the state's court system. The legitimacy of the judiciary survives largely because the system is perceived to be separate from the political machinations that go on within a legislature. O'Connor's willingness to use her judicial position to help shape policy should make Ohioans wonder about her ability to be an objective arbiter.

"Judges shouldn't be muzzled," says Anderson, "but lobbying as a judge—not as an individual, but as a judge—risks the independence and objectivity of the judicial branch."

NEXT: Gov. Cuomo’s Plan To Attack Cigarette Retailers Will Fuel New York's Black Market

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I wonder if any defense attorneys whose cases get to her state Supreme Court will ask her to recuse herself, and whether they’d have any chance in federal courts if she didn’t. ISSASANL

    1. Well, the ones involved in a drug case, or any other case relying on past drug convictions as part of sentencing, I would say they have a good case since she specifically called out her position in the letter.

      1. Position as in job title, not political position.

      2. And on official stationary.

        Congress is not permitted to use official, government supplied materials for campaigning, what about for lobbying about legislation? Seems similar.

  2. “The Ohio legislators have made their law. Now let them enforce it.”

    1. As you wish judge; up against the wall.

    1. Always a persecutor!

  3. “Judges shouldn’t be muzzled,” says Anderson, “but lobbying as a judge—not as an individual, but as a judge—risks the independence and objectivity of the judicial branch.”

    Hey, if the legislative branch is going to meddle in the affairs of the executive and the executive branch exercises legislative prerogatives, why wouldn’t the judicial branch decide to get involved in the power grab free-for-all as well? This is what it looks like when the rule of law starts breaking down and this has been coming a long time. At least since Auer and Chevron when the Supremes decided there was a rebuttable presumption that the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in the Administrative State were acting Constitutionally when they exercised their authority as judge, jury and executioner.

  4. This is what happens when you don’t push for full legalization of drugs rather than simple decriminalization and/or de-regulation of drugs.

    The Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional and no state has a Constitution that gives the state the power to ban products or services.

    Start there.

    1. I think maybe we’re just using different definitions for those terms, but it seems like you got them backwards? Decriminalization is usually just the removal of criminal penalties for drug possession and manufacture (i.e. what the layperson would think legalization means). Legalization as used by the progressive end of the reform crowd usually means permitting such activities – in the sense of permits, licenses, etc. – essentially being required to obtain govt permission to engage in the activity, rather than having its legality be the default except where it violates other laws.

      1. Decriminalization is removal of criminal penalties, not necessarily all penalties, and the activity in question usually remains enjoined. Legalization makes an action legal, i.e. not illegal. Legalization doesn’t imply or necessarily come with anything else. Decriminalization doesn’t (necessarily) make an act legal.

    2. Huh? Whether “you” push or not, opposition exists. Why would anyone’s pushing for “simple decriminalization and/or de-regulation” cause “this” to happen? How would anyone’s pushing for full legalization cause “this” not to happen?

      It’s like the joke where they said if I voted for Goldwater for president I’d get [list of bad results], and they were right. I voted for Goldwater and we did get [that list of bad results].

  5. O’Conner: “We can’t coddle these damn druggies!!”
    Also O’Conner: “Is it time for another Bloody Mary yet?”

    1. You mean she’s looking for somebody to burn people at the stake?

  6. “We think of the judicial system as a place where you can get a decision about a dispute that’s free from political considerations,” says Anderson.

    Where the hell has he been this decade?
    And to stay on topic, what the hell is he using?

    1. Something that needs to be knocked down to a misdemeanor.

    2. Putting people in prison is the policy we put in place for political considerations.

    3. Typical law prof b-s. Judges always espouse their non-political decision-making. Anyone who represents people in court knows the judiciary is political as hell.

  7. “81 percent of Ohioans sentenced to prison for low-level drug offenses last year had prior criminal convictions and therefore would not be eligible for the treatment programs Eklund is proposing to use as an alternative to jail time. (Of course that means 19 percent of those offenders—more than 300 people, by O’Connor’s own count—would stand to benefit.)”

    Okay, so let’s apply some reason on Reason and ask some objective questions.

    1. What happens to the 81% who aren’t charged with felonies that had prior convictions?
    2. What are the consequences of those events?
    3. What happens to the 19% who won’t be charged with a felony and don’t have prior convictions?
    4. What is the success rate for treatment? Is treatment mandatory or voluntary?
    5. What are the costs and benefits of each option?

    Something tells me that there may be some unintended consequences considering the statistical disparity.

  8. >>she seems to recognize the unusual nature of her advocacy.

    nobody has to listen to her or read her letters. still seems ethical.

  9. When all participants of a “system” are feeding from the same nose-bag, free from competition — and are allowed (by your neighbors and friends — hopefully not you) to
    • Make the laws,
    • Enforce the laws,
    • Prosecute the laws,
    • Hire the prosecutors,
    • License the “defense” attorneys,
    • Pay the “judges”,
    • Build the jails,
    • Contract jails out to private entities,
    • Employ and pay the wardens,
    • Employ and pay the guards,
    • Employ and pay the parole officers,
    One can’t honestly call it a “justice” system. It’s a system of abject tyranny.
    Are you or your “representatives” threatening someone with an initiation of violence today?

  10. I’d be very curious to see a list of her campaign donors and her personal investment portfolio. Ohio has a very high rate of incarceration and I suspect the motive for overcriminalization and mass incarceration is financial. Ohio is also one of those states that likes to hide state prisoners in local jails to fudge their numbers.


  11. This sort of thing doesn’t risk judicial objectivity. What it does is reveal lack of judicial objectivity.

  12. O’Connor, of course, has a First Amendment right to speak about legislation and to criticize the legislative process if she wants. But she seems to recognize the unusual nature of her advocacy.

    Government officials, like anybody else, have First Amendment rights. But they do not have a right to keeping their government job if their speech is incompatible with their official duties.

  13. Very distrubing. It is the lack of opportunity. It is, the cage we live in. It is that our support systems have disintegrated. No maternity / paternity leave; unaffordable basic needs (housing, healthcare, utilities, food, transportation…). Prison may be the only hope for some – just like some people truly want to be in prison. Unfortunately, for the overwhelming majority of addicts, all it would take is a support system and opportunity to have a meaningful life. For most who are sent to prison it is tragic and truly nothing short of an injustice akin to sending someone to prison for having cancer.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.