|
Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues
The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of the Cincinnati Area and asked of all candidates for this office.
See below for questions on
Public financing,
Merit selection,
Racial Fairness
Click on a name for other candidate information.
|
1. Do you support public financing of campaigns for judicial candidates? Why or why not?
|
Answer from Robert H. Gorman:
Public funding will not resolve campaign finance reform. It may equalize spending, but it favors name recognition rather than qualifications. The fallacy is the assumption candidates will agree not to spend private money. The U.S. Sixth Circuit has held, however, that limits on expenditures by judicial candidates generally violate the First Amendment.
|
2. Would you support merit selection of judges? Why or why not?
|
Answer from Robert H. Gorman:
Public funding will not resolve campaign finance reform. It may equalize spending, but it favors name recognition rather than qualifications. The fallacy is the assumption candidates will agree not to spend private money. The U.S. Sixth Circuit has held, however, that limits on expenditures by judicial candidates generally violate the First Amendment.
Merit selection more effectively addresses public skepticism engendered by soft money and contributions by vested interests.
|
3. In light of the Report of the Ohio Commission on Racial Fairness: Reviewing fairness of the Ohio legal system, what do you see as your role in addressing racism within the legal system
|
Answer from Robert H. Gorman:
Ohio Courts are waiting for the Ohio Supreme Court to implement the
1999 recommendations of the Commission on Racial Fairness. The goal of
the First Appellate District is to assure that trials and proceedings are
race neutral. As appellate judges, we perform this role by reviewing each
case for constitutional violations, effective assistance Of counsel,
sufficiency of evidence, and the sentence for disparity. Within the court
the climate must be race free in all respects. See: State v Walker (Sept. 1,
2000), Hamilton App. No. C980849, unreported. Thomas v Gen. Elec. co.
(1999), 131 Ohio App. 3d 825, 723 N.E.2d 1139.
Responses to questions asked of each candidate
are reproduced as submitted to the League, but formatted for Web display.
Candidates' statements are presented as
submitted. Word limits for answers are 75 words for each question.
Direct references to opponents are not permitted
The order of the candidates is random and changes daily.
|
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
