But Ohio shouldn't elect judges
A recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling has allowed judicial candidates to advertise their political affiliation in future elections. Although there has been much debate about whether the new rule could potentially influence court rulings, the new guidelines will likely not have much of an effect on the impartiality of judicial candidates. However, the fundamental problem of the current system is not whether judges can voice their political leanings, but the fact that judges are elected and not appointed.
Some might argue that by electing judges the citizens at large can hold the judges responsible for their actions and have the freedom to vote them in and out of office. But the inherent problem with that argument is the judicial branch of government should not concern itself with pleasing the masses, but instead legally protecting the rights of all citizens.
By appointing judges, as is done in the U.S. Supreme Court, all political pressures are removed from the office and judges are free to interpret the law correctly and not feel pressured to rule in favor of any particular political interest group.
Further, the state government should form a committee that would be in charge of appointing judges, in a non-partisan fashion, to the needed positions.
According to a report -Judicial selection in the United States -commissioned by the American Judicature Society, 24 states use commission plans to aid governors in the selection of judges for vacancies, and 10 others use such commission plans to make recommendations on filling midterm vacancies. Ohio will join 13 other states that use partisan elections to fill at least some judicial openings.
Although the ruling on whether judicial candidates can voice their political leanings in elections will not eliminate the impartiality of judges, the election system is inherently flawed. Judges should be appointed or promoted based on precedents set and followed and the overall rating of a judge. Only through an appointment system can the selection of judges be completely fair and impartial, and until the current system changes there will always be questions concerning the impartiality of judges.
The best solution
Apartment complex is saved by OU
Maintenance difficulties guided former OU President Robert Glidden's decision to raze the Mill Street Apartment complex last year. President Roderick McDavis decided otherwise, however, and stopped the demolition last August. The complex is now slated to be renovated by Wesam Construction Inc., of Chester. The apartments will be ready for occupation by fall 2006 and the complex will be returned to the university after 30 years. All and all, this is a good decision by the university and one that will benefit students.
The complex has an ideal location for student residents, situated near the intramural fields next to Mill Street. Demolition and potential construction of new buildings would have cost far more than the renovations planned. In a time of financial pressure on higher education statewide, the university made the most thrifty choice. Wesam's primary competitor for the renovation rights was PRS Companies of Roswell, Ga. The latter would have charged about twice as much and was unwilling to ever relinquish ownership. Wesam will pay OU $300,000 in an initial fee along with other payments as part of the lease.
The renovations Wesam has planned are just enough to restore the complex to roughly the state in which it once was. The roughly 150 rooms will be remodeled and only minor exterior changes will be made. With an estimated cost of about $6 million, the cost is bearable and the venture will save valuable student housing.
Extravagant expenditures must be avoided during the current budgetary crunch, and the university has dodged one such financial bullet. Better yet, the complex did not have to be sacrificed altogether. This transaction should prove to be a winner in the long run, and future university purchases should mirror its prudence.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial
