In
his testimony, Alt noted that including party identification would lead
to higher levels of voter engagement in general elections for Ohio’s
judges and would clear up confusion in Ohio’s current system, which
requires judicial candidates to specify their party identification in
order to declare their candidacy, places those judicial candidates on
partisan primary ballots, but then omits that same party identification
on the general election ballots preventing voters from taking it into
consideration at the ballot box.
This
confusing, nontransparent, and backward system leads to fewer voters
casting ballots in Ohio’s judicial races. In fact, Alt noted that
“nearly a million more Ohioans cast votes for the governor and other
statewide offices than for Ohio Supreme Court justices” in the 2018 election.
Alt
urged lawmakers to correct Ohio’s “flawed policy that reduces voter
engagement in judicial elections” and “requires judicial candidates to
identify by party, and then denies voters that very same information.”
# # #
Put Party ID on Judicial Election Ballots
Interested Party Testimony
Ohio Senate Local Government and Elections Committee
Senate Bill 80
Robert Alt, President & CEO
The Buckeye Institute
March 23, 2021
As Prepared for Delivery
Chair
Gavarone, Vice Chair O’Brien, Ranking Member Maharath, and members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding
Senate Bill 80.
My name is Robert Alt, I am the president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute,
an independent research and educational institution—a think tank—whose
mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.
Senate
Bill 80 provides voters with more information at the ballot box. Party
identification is information the voters seek and providing it would
lead to more voter-engagement on the general election ballot for Ohio’s
judges. According to a 2014 Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics study,
only one-half of registered voters in Ohio say they always cast a
ballot for judges. Three-fifths of registered voters told the Bliss
Institute they “frequently lack information to make good decisions in
judicial elections.”
To
my knowledge, Ohio is the only state in the nation that holds a
partisan primary and a general election that isn’t non-partisan, but
pretends to be by failing to provide party information to the voter. It
is a misnomer to call Ohio’s judicial general elections
“non-partisan.” The Declaration of Candidacy for Supreme Court Justice,
for example, requires
a candidate to list party identification. The party identification then
is omitted from the general election ballot. The process, which
requires party identification to declare candidacy, places candidates on
partisan primary ballots, but then omits party identification on the
general election ballot, is confusing, unnecessary, and depresses voting
in judicial elections.
Even in high-profile judicial elections, Ohioans vote far less frequently for judges than other elected officials. In the 2018 election,
nearly a million more Ohioans cast votes for the governor and other
statewide offices than for Ohio Supreme Court justices in both Supreme
Court races. In one of the 2018 Ohio Supreme Court races, the roll-off
from the gubernatorial election (that is, the percentage of voters who
cast votes for the governor but not the Supreme Court race) was a
whopping 20.6 percent. And the roll-off from the other statewide
elections compared to the Supreme Court race was nearly as stark: 19.2
percent from the attorney general race; 18.8 percent from the auditor
race; 19.4 percent from the secretary of state race; and 18.7 percent
from the treasurer race. The roll-off numbers in the other 2018 Ohio
Supreme Court race are similar: 19.8 percent roll-off from the governor;
18.4 percent from the attorney general, 18 percent from the auditor;
18.6 percent from the secretary of state; and 17.9 percent from the
treasurer.
Now
consider the roll-off between the governor and Ohio’s other statewide
elected officials. The roll-off from governor to the attorney general
was only 1.2 percent; from governor to auditor was 2.2 percent; from
governor to secretary of state was 1.5 percent; and from governor to
treasurer was 2.4 percent.
Contrast
Ohio’s roll-off rates with two recent state Supreme Court election
cycles in Texas and North Carolina, states with judicial party
identification on the general election ballot. In 2018,
Texas held elections for three Supreme Court seats and its statewide
elected officials. In the Supreme Court races, the roll-off between the
gubernatorial election and all three of the Supreme Court races was
between 1.8 percent and 1.9 percent. Ohio’s roll-off rate between the
gubernatorial and Supreme Court races was nearly 20 percentage points
more than the roll-off rate of those same races in Texas. Similarly, in
the 2020 election cycle,
North Carolina saw 0nly a 2.5 percent roll-off between the presidential
election and the state Supreme Court’s chief justice election.
As
Texas and North Carolina demonstrate, voter participation rises with
more relevant information on the ballot. And party identification is
clearly relevant information.
Senate
Bill 80 will correct a flawed policy that reduces voter engagement in
judicial elections. We may debate whether judges should be selected by
partisan elections, but that topic is not on today’s agenda. Ohio has
partisan judicial elections. Ohio requires judicial candidates to
identify by party, and then denies voters that very same information. If
Ohio continues to hold partisan judicial elections, it should do so
transparently.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions that the Committee may have.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment