enquirer.com

News
Front Page
Local
Sports
-Bengals
-Reds
-Bearcats
-Xavier
Business
Health
Technology
Weather
Traffic
Back Issues
Photographs
AP Wire
-World
-Nation
-Sports
-Business
-Arts
-Health

Classifieds
Jobs
Autos
General
Obits
Homes

Freetime
Movies
Dining
Calendars
Weekend

Opinion
Columns
Borgman

GoCinci
HelpDesk
Feedback
Circulation
Subscribe
Phone #'s
Search

E N Q U I R E R   L O C A L   N E W S   C O V E R A G E
Tuesday, October 19, 1999

Countywide election of judges OK


Top court rejects challenge from black Ohio voters

BY BEN L. KAUFMAN
The Cincinnati Enquirer

        At-large elections for Ohio urban judges Monday survived a Supreme Court challenge by blacks who said overwhelming white majorities bury their choices and violate the Voting Rights Act.

        Rather than take up that question, the justices refused to hear the black voters' appeal.

        Monday's one-sentence decision, with no dissent, allows countywide ballots to continue for Hamilton County Common Pleas and appeals courts.

        “We certainly are pleased,” said N. Victor Goodman, defense attorney for the state, the governor and secretary of state. “It's a vindication of the arguments we presented at trial and to the appellate court.”

        Cincinnatian William Mallory Sr. called it an arrogant decision that brushed off a violation of his most basic right, the right to vote. “I don't think they understand the gravity of the situation.”

        In Hamilton County, no black has sat among the six judges of the Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals; one black sits among 19 white Common Pleas judges, and four blacks sit among 10 white Municipal Court judges.

        Mr. Mallory and 11 other black Democrats from around the state sought relief from federal courts because Ohio's General Assembly prefers “shameful” at-large elections that suit whatever political party dominates an urban county.

        Despite General Assembly rebuffs when he was a state representative, Mr. Mallory said he hoped Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer would make “one more big try” to win electoral change from legislators. “He ought to lead the fight.”

        Richard A. Cordray, the attorney whose petition for a rehearing the Supreme Court rejected Monday, said he and his clients were “disappointed” but not defeated.

        He predicted they would concentrate on county political parties, urging them to support the appointment and election of black judges.

        “I agree,” said Tim Burke, co-chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party. “It's up to the political parties and the governor to make a difference.”

        Democrats are so committed to diversity that they won't run a white against a black GOP judicial candidate in Hamilton County, Mr. Burke said. “It is simply not right that the vast majority of the people who come before the courts are African-Americans while sitting on the other side of the bench, blacks are virtually unrepresented.”

        Buck Niehoff, chairman of the Hamilton County GOP, agreed that racial diversity was important to the community and the judiciary, adding, “The Republican Party plans to continue our strong commitment to casting the very broadest net ... for the very best candidates from all races.'

        The case began with a complaint in 1995 by black Democrats from Hamilton, Franklin, Cuyahoga, Lucas, Montgomery, Mahoning, Summit and Stark counties.

        They said white suburban majorities overwhelmed urban blacks' choices for 20 municipal, common pleas and appeals courts and violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting African-Americans' votes.

        Defense attorney Goodman conceded that race was a factor in judicial elections but he said it was far less important to winners than endorsement and support by a county's dominant political party.

        The suit went to trial in 1997 and U.S. District Judge George Smith in Columbus said the challengers “failed to prove that African-Americans were denied an equal opportunity to elect judges of their choice.”

        The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati upheld that ruling in April, saying that even if there were a violation of the Voting Rights Act, the legislature must craft the solution.

       



Money woes threaten Health Alliance future
Report disputes cost efficiency of commuter rail
Mason plans civic complex
Repairs slow Reagan Highway
County confident in computers
Elsmere council shoots down idea of guns for whole town
Looking back at the misery of El Rancho
- Countywide election of judges OK
1,500 expected at peace meeting
Hispanics file housing lawsuit
Job discrimination called widespread
Mother of man shot dead by police issues plea for calm
Service provides clothing for needy in job interviews
Shooting apparently sparked by card game
Airport to show plans for runways
Charges filed in Colerain Twp. attacks
Daring feat to raise money for treatment
Eligibility ruling may be a first
Foster care agency will inspect homes
Silverton zoning change sought for CVS store
Straightened Ky. 9 near reopening
TRISTATE DIGEST


 
Search | Questions/help | News tips | Letters to the editors
Web advertising | Place a classified | Subscribe | Circulation

Copyright 1995-2000. The Cincinnati Enquirer, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper.
Use of this site signifies agreement to terms of service updated 4/5/2000.