The Observation Deck

In 2021, Lakewood voters will likely see something they haven't seen in several decades: a crowded race for Municipal Court Judge. Judge Patrick Carroll is retiring after 30+ years of dedicated service to Lakewood, and the open seat will probably be sought by many candidates. Lakewood's current charter, however, does not allow for a primary election to be held for the position of judge.

Unlike positions for city council and mayor - where 3 or more candidates are pared down to two in a primary election - all candidates for municipal court judge appear on the general election ballot, no matter how many have filed. The problem with this system is that in a race with as many as 8 or 10 candidates splitting the electorate, someone could be elected our judge for a six year term with as little as 12% or 15% of the vote. This is simply not democratic.

Voters can fix this problem by voting YES on Issue 43. Issue 43 is simple: it will change our charter to allow for a primary election for the position of municipal court judge which will determine the top two candidates to advance to the general election. This will guarantee that there are only two candidates appearing on the general election ballot, meaning that whomever is elected our judge is elected with the assent of a majority of Lakewood voters.

This charter amendment was placed on the ballot by city council in a unanimous vote. It enjoys broad support, including from several members of the Charter Review Commission.

To ensure integrity in our judicial elections, please join me in voting YES on Issue 43.

Dan OMalley wrote:In 2021, Lakewood voters will likely see something they haven't seen in several decades: a crowded race for Municipal Court Judge. Judge Patrick Carroll is retiring after 30+ years of dedicated service to Lakewood, and the open seat will probably be sought by many candidates. Lakewood's current charter, however, does not allow for a primary election to be held for the position of judge.

Unlike positions for city council and mayor - where 3 or more candidates are pared down to two in a primary election - all candidates for municipal court judge appear on the general election ballot, no matter how many have filed. The problem with this system is that in a race with as many as 8 or 10 candidates splitting the electorate, someone could be elected our judge for a six year term with as little as 12% or 15% of the vote. This is simply not democratic.

Voters can fix this problem by voting YES on Issue 43. Issue 43 is simple: it will change our charter to allow for a primary election for the position of municipal court judge which will determine the top two candidates to advance to the general election. This will guarantee that there are only two candidates appearing on the general election ballot, meaning that whomever is elected our judge is elected with the assent of a majority of Lakewood voters.

This charter amendment was placed on the ballot by city council in a unanimous vote. It enjoys broad support, including from several members of the Charter Review Commission.

To ensure integrity in our judicial elections, please join me in voting YES on Issue 43.

This is not a problem for me. One of Lakewood's biggest problem is that it is a single party polity -- Democrats only.

There will be many qualified and talented candidates from both parties who will be interested in this race. I intend to vote against Issue 43.

The last Amended Charter has proven something of a disaster for us. --No hospital. --No enforceable ethics requirements.

One of Lakewood's biggest problems is that it has a non-partisan ballot. Invariably, the primary match-up will only be is Democrat v. Democrat.

Kudos to both you and Steve Davis for seeing this obvious problem in the charter and working to fix it.

I am amazed this has never popped up before.


.

Mark Kindt wrote:One of Lakewood's biggest problems is that it has a non-partisan ballot. Invariably, the primary match-up will only be is Democrat v. Democrat.

I want to note that nonpartisan elections are typically advantageous to the minority party. I don't imagine identifying the Ds and Rs on the ballot would be a benefit to a Republican candidate in Lakewood.

Anyway, this reminds me of a detail I omitted in my original post: the primary election for judge would be nonpartisan.

Mark Kindt wrote: One of Lakewood's biggest problem is that it is a single party polity -- Democrats only.

There will be many qualified and talented candidates from both parties who will be interested in this race. I intend to vote against Issue 43.

One of Lakewood's biggest problems is that it has a non-partisan ballot. Invariably, the primary match-up will only be is Democrat v. Democrat.

Michael Deneen wrote:Sam's lies are so plentiful that it's hard to properly categorize them.
However, this is another example of Democratic Establishment hypocrisy.
The County Party (along with its satellite groups like the Stonewall Democrats) had a chance to endorse a qualified woman for a leadership position.
Instead they decided to stick to the "old boys network" and endorse a much younger male candidate.
A male candidate with a known history of lying and political baggage.

This is the same County Establishment that will spend the entire year 2020 trashing Trump and the GOP as a bunch of sexists.

[img]

olearypinocchio.jpg

[/img]

Messrs Kindt and Deneen,

I agree with both of you on your "bi-partisan" thoughts above. Here is a place you might consider starting to make a change:

https://www.cuyahogacountygop.com/contact-us

Perhaps messaging Mr. Bill Call through the Deck messaging system as well--he has many good ideas and contacts.

There might be 1 or 2 good "minority" candidates living in Lakewood who are worthy of succeeded Judge Carroll.

Dan OMalley wrote:

Mark Kindt wrote:One of Lakewood's biggest problems is that it has a non-partisan ballot. Invariably, the primary match-up will only be is Democrat v. Democrat.

I want to note that nonpartisan elections are typically advantageous to the minority party. I don't imagine identifying the Ds and Rs on the ballot would be a benefit to a Republican candidate in Lakewood.

Anyway, this reminds me of a detail I omitted in my original post: the primary election for judge would be nonpartisan.

As I continue to comment on Lakewood governance, you will see that I will continue to argue that the mono-party scope of politics in the city functions to its long-term detriment; and that it should not be structurally embedded in a Charter that was abused by the Law Department to rebut what were obviously conflicts-of-interest related to the public appointees on LHA.

This is just more embedded structure to ensure that "nonpartisan" always means "Democrats only".

Forget the D and the R in Lakewood.

I propose that certain candidates be designated EF.

All those running with the backing of Ed Fitzgerald should be proud to let voters know that.

That’ll tell you everything you need to know.

Mark Kindt wrote:

Dan OMalley wrote:

Mark Kindt wrote:One of Lakewood's biggest problems is that it has a non-partisan ballot. Invariably, the primary match-up will only be is Democrat v. Democrat.

I want to note that nonpartisan elections are typically advantageous to the minority party. I don't imagine identifying the Ds and Rs on the ballot would be a benefit to a Republican candidate in Lakewood.

Anyway, this reminds me of a detail I omitted in my original post: the primary election for judge would be nonpartisan.

As I continue to comment on Lakewood governance, you will see that I will continue to argue that the mono-party scope of politics in the city functions to its long-term detriment; and that it should not be structurally embedded in a Charter that was abused by the Law Department to rebut what were obviously conflicts-of-interest related to the public appointees on LHA.

This is just more embedded structure to ensure that "nonpartisan" always means "Democrats only".

For the record, the elections for judge have long been non-partisan and will remain so even if Issue 43 passes. This is not part of the proposed change. Partisanship was not and is not a factor in proposing this amendment.

Dan OMalley wrote:

Mark Kindt wrote:

Dan OMalley wrote:

Mark Kindt wrote:One of Lakewood's biggest problems is that it has a non-partisan ballot. Invariably, the primary match-up will only be is Democrat v. Democrat.

I want to note that nonpartisan elections are typically advantageous to the minority party. I don't imagine identifying the Ds and Rs on the ballot would be a benefit to a Republican candidate in Lakewood.

Anyway, this reminds me of a detail I omitted in my original post: the primary election for judge would be nonpartisan.

As I continue to comment on Lakewood governance, you will see that I will continue to argue that the mono-party scope of politics in the city functions to its long-term detriment; and that it should not be structurally embedded in a Charter that was abused by the Law Department to rebut what were obviously conflicts-of-interest related to the public appointees on LHA.

This is just more embedded structure to ensure that "nonpartisan" always means "Democrats only".

For the record, the elections for judge have long been non-partisan and will remain so even if Issue 43 passes. This is not part of the proposed change. Partisanship was not and is not a factor in proposing this amendment.

I understand your observation. The non-partisan ballot in Lakewood has burdened the voters with a structural and absolute reduction in policy alternatives and alternative candidate opportunities.

Every time, the Charter is tampered with the citizens lose.

A wide-open judicial race would be a benefit to all voters, given the single-party rule of the past decade.

Mark Kindt wrote:

Dan OMalley wrote:

Mark Kindt wrote:

Dan OMalley wrote:

Mark Kindt wrote:One of Lakewood's biggest problems is that it has a non-partisan ballot. Invariably, the primary match-up will only be is Democrat v. Democrat.

I want to note that nonpartisan elections are typically advantageous to the minority party. I don't imagine identifying the Ds and Rs on the ballot would be a benefit to a Republican candidate in Lakewood.

Anyway, this reminds me of a detail I omitted in my original post: the primary election for judge would be nonpartisan.

As I continue to comment on Lakewood governance, you will see that I will continue to argue that the mono-party scope of politics in the city functions to its long-term detriment; and that it should not be structurally embedded in a Charter that was abused by the Law Department to rebut what were obviously conflicts-of-interest related to the public appointees on LHA.

This is just more embedded structure to ensure that "nonpartisan" always means "Democrats only".

For the record, the elections for judge have long been non-partisan and will remain so even if Issue 43 passes. This is not part of the proposed change. Partisanship was not and is not a factor in proposing this amendment.

I understand your observation. The non-partisan ballot in Lakewood has burdened the voters with a structural and absolute reduction in policy alternatives and alternative candidate opportunities.

Every time, the Charter is tampered with the citizens lose.

A wide-open judicial race would be a benefit to all voters, given the single-party rule of the past decade.

My further point on this is that, for a city facing a $300,000,000 unreported federal mandate, the city administration successfully managed to blow-up about $200,000,000 in public assets in what was essentially an incompetent conflict-ridden process that had political unanimity (all Democrat votes.) I write this as a life-long Democratic Party voter and a 1972 voter for McGovern for President. I am also a long-term, if minor, donor to Senator Brown's periodic Senate campaigns.

One more point.

Federal judges have life-tenure under the U.S. Constitution and the selection process is functionally bi-partisan.

There is no reason that a municipal court judge should have life-tenure due to some illusory non-partisan designation, when every voter gets a Democratic Voter's Guide with partisan endorsements.

Let's not embed life-tenure in the Charter.

I congratulate Judge Carroll on his service and 30 years of public service.

Let's make sure that the Charter encourages competitive races for that position when it comes up for election or reelection.

My question concerns turnout, specifically multi-partisan turnout for the primary election. Whether the candidates are identified R or D or not, there will be less Lakewood Rs who will turnout for an election just to vote for a municipal judge and a council race or two between Ds. It's not a big draw. Is this fair and representative?

Does anyone know the percentages of Rs and Ds in Lakewood?

Dan

https://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/e ... 022019.pdf


Interesting that there are more unaffiliated voters than both the Dems and Repubs combined.

Let me enter into the discussion. Back in the 1950's Lakewood was "non partisan" (notice the air quotes?). Frank Celeste was elected Mayor in ?1957. He was a Democrat. This was intolerable to the goody two shoes Republicans. So, under the leadership of Councilman Robert Lawther an initiative was promulgated to make Lakewood partisan--i.e. forcing Celeste to out himself. He was reelected Mayor. Parity existed with an ascendent Democratic Party in the late 60s and early 70s. Partisan elections were the norm for two decades. Then, in the early 80s with the decline of the Republicans they initiated a last ditch effort to go Non partisan under the leadership of Ryan Demro who was subsequently elected to council along with Pam Smith.
It didn't help them but the "non partisanship" still existed on the books.
Flash forward to this particular judicial position. I an voting For the amendment because there has to be a method to winnow down the field so there is a 2 candidate choice in the General Election.
If a candidate for Judge feels that party affiliation is an important part of his or her resume that candidate should use that as an issue.
If an opposing candidate feels that that is an inappropriate criteria-he or she should use that as an issue.

On election day--YOU decide which is the decisive argument.

Stan Austin

Bridget Conant wrote:Dan

https://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/e ... 022019.pdf


Interesting that there are more unaffiliated voters than both the Dems and Repubs combined.

Very interesting. Although there is a clear majority of Dems, there are enough Rs to make consideration of that population worthwhile and fair. Unlike many Dems and many Rs, I think fairness needs to be a prime concern.
I'd like to see a trend line of the unaffiliated voters over the years.

And:
64 voters in Linndale. That's all I have to blame for my recent $125 "speeding" fine. (40 in a 25 that should have been a 35)