In 2016 two of the judges on the Appellate Court and the trial judge were all up for re-election.  None of them were challenged in the primary by anyone in their own party.  Nor was there a challenger in the General election from someone in the opposite party.

Now in 2018

No Incumbent Judges
When there is no incumbent judge - Democracy is allowed
Incumbent Judicial Races
When there is an incumbent - collusion prevents the fair election of Judges

Now in 2018, the other member of the Appellate Court is up for re-election.  In fact, there were eleven judge positions up for election in the May 2018 primary.  In the pictures, I sorted the races into contested and non-contested races.  You can see that four races did not have an incumbent.  All four of those races had at least two lawyers vying for those positions.  You can see that six of the races had incumbent judges that were previously elected.  Of those, there were no challengers either from their own party or the opposite party.  You notice that six and four make ten, so what about the last race?  In that race, the incumbent judge was appointed and had never faced a contested race.  Therefore, it was not a breach of the unwritten rule for someone to challenge him. 

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor in 2014 put forth a plan that she felt would strengthen the Ohio Judicial System.  On the second page she is forced to concede,

“Judicial elections aren’t going anywhere because the people of Ohio have spoken loud and clear that they want to elect their judges.”

Yet she has done nothing to stop the collusion that makes one contested election of judges a virtual lifetime appointment, instead she happily benefits from it, running unopposed for re-election n 2016.   

Visit our storefront on and wear a teeshirt or hoodie to show your support for eliminating lawyer collusion and giving us a chance to elect the best people to the bench. 



 See the details of the Employment Relationship

See examples of Lawyer Lies