Editorial Roundup: Ohio

Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from Ohio newspapers:

Why Ohio should keep front license plates

Akron Beacon Journal

Jan. 4

With no shortage of significant challenges facing Ohio, one would think state lawmakers would be focused on real issues impacting the daily lives of its residents.

Instead, they’re once again debating the foolish concept of no longer requiring front license plates on vehicles.

Even worse, lawmakers voted last year to remove the front-plate requirement effective July 1. They’re now - thankfully - debating whether to fix their mistake.

Talk about a waste of valuable time when our state likely saw a net loss in jobs in 2019 and still needs real solutions to school funding and other challenges.

The case for dropping front plates involves unimportant aesthetics, the increasing use of sensors in front bumpers and unspecified desires of auto dealers. Some House Republicans “insisted on eliminating the plate as part of a conference committee deal to pass the transportation budget last spring,” The Columbus Dispatch reported. Nationwide, 31 states require front license plates.

Those opposed include police, prosecutors, school bus drivers and just about everyone opposed to making life easier for criminals and those who ignore school bus warning lights.

Col. Richard Fambro, superintendent of the State Highway Patrol, told lawmakers the lack of a front plate will make it “virtually impossible” to track down drivers who illegally pass school buses. The patrol alone cites about 600 dangerous drivers for bus violations a year.

Bus cameras capture the front of oncoming vehicles, a tactic police also use with automatic plate readers to find wanted vehicles.

“By removing one plate, you remove 50 percent of law enforcement’s ability to apprehend criminals,” said Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio lobbyist Mike Weinman.

Why do smart people who become lawmakers suddenly feel empowered to ignore the advice of professionals who are experts in their fields? Why would Republicans, who like to talk tough on crime, support helping criminals?

Sadly, Republican House Speaker Larry Householder seems unwilling to reconsider last year’s vote, calling the matter settled. That ignores the fact that dropping the front plates was attached to a larger measure many lawmakers felt compelled to approve for other reasons.

We’re encouraged that some Republican lawmakers and Gov. Mike DeWine are fighting to stop this threat to public safety.

There’s no reason to not hold a straight-up, one-issue vote on this matter.

Online: https://bit.ly/2ZZ9z6O

___

Stark County represented well in Columbus

Canton Repository

Jan. 5

Both at the national level and at the state level, many “representatives” take the job with little interest in actually representing their constituents at all. They see the jobs as a way to feather their own nests rather than improving the lives of those they were elected to serve.

Not so for residents of Stark County.

As a multi-part series over the past few days has highlighted, we are blessed indeed with lawmakers working in Columbus not only on our behalf but for the betterment of the entire state.

Everyone in Ohio should be as fortunate.

With actions taken in 2019 and planned for 2020, Kirk Schuring, Thomas West, Reggie Stoltzfus and Scott Oelslager have restored faith that our system of representative government can work effectively to address and solve the challenging issues of our day.

Obviously major issues remain, and on several hot-button topics philosophical differences will be difficult to overcome as lawmakers work to find solutions.

But let’s stop and appreciate the collective efforts Stark County’s delegation has taken on such important issues as adolescent mental health, prescription drug costs, transportation funding, the opioid epidemic and education requirements to name only a handful.

And on all of these issues, our lawmakers worked with peers across the state in a bipartisan fashion, something not nearly as evident in recent, less harmonious years. Republicans still outnumber Democrats by a wide margin in both the House and Senate, but the minority party has played a major role in introducing, shaping and passing key bills.

“It wasn’t who you are, it’s about what we can do,” West said of the bipartisan spirit at work in Columbus in 2019. He and other Democrats have been willing and able to work with House Speaker Larry Householder and other top Republicans.

One issue where West has taken a lead is in creating an entity and providing funding to work proactively rather than reactively on issues related to childhood behavioral health - turning a topic of personal importance into a plus for the state.

Stoltzfus, likewise, has taken a cause close to his heart - adoption - and shaped legislation to assist foster families across Ohio. His leadership in this area will help kids in need and strengthen families.

With elections and term limits constantly affecting the makeup of the House and Senate, few lawmakers possess the clout and experience to make a difference year in and year out. That’s where Kirk Schuring and Scott Oelslager distinguish themselves and Stark County.

The most recent state budget bill included 22 amendments Schuring introduced, some for the direct benefit of Stark County and each for the good of Ohioans in all corners of the state.

Oelslager, who moved from the Senate to the House in 2018, retained leadership of the Finance Committee, and with it oversight of the biggest bill lawmakers tackle each session.

He told Repository reporter Robert Wang he takes pride that every Republican and Democrat on the House Finance Committee, all 33 members, approved of the House’s initial version of the most recent budget bill.

“It showed parties can work together (and) that you can work with the other side to help people in your state,” Oelslager said.

“We do have a good bipartisan working relationship now,” Stoltzfus said. “I do think with the election coming up in 2020, that might draw that down a little bit.”

Let’s hope Ohioans don’t go down that path. On the whole, 2019 was a successful year in the General Assembly with encouraging signs for the future. We thank Schuring, West, Stoltzfus and Oelslager for leading the way and representing us well.

Online: https://bit.ly/2QvE0yA

___

Tax increase for health and human services merits your support, despite Cuyahoga County’s bad messaging

Cleveland Plain Dealer

Jan. 7

The subtitle of this editorial could be “Please look past Cuyahoga County government’s clumsy nonsense and vote to help those in our community who are hurting.”

Yes, we are frustrated by how regularly County Executive Armond Budish’s administration screws up. Yes, we are disappointed by the administration’s inexcusably bad messaging in rolling out a proposal to raise our taxes.

But, yes, we wholeheartedly endorse this tax increase. It will help so many troubled people – the mentally ill, senior citizens, people battling addiction, babies, the hungry and more. It is worthy of your approval March 17.

Some quick details: The health and human services levy would raise an extra $35 million a year, cost $41 per $100,000 in property value and has yet to be assigned a number on the ballot.

Here’s the clumsy part. When Budish and County Council President Dan Brady announced they wanted more of our money to help those in need, they refused to say exactly how they would spend the cash. We spent weeks warning them that failing to itemize the $35 million would cause many voters to doubt them. They failed, anyway.

It defies explanation that these two experienced politicians would sit there and announce a tax increase while defiantly refusing to say where the money would go. And, you’d be wholly justified to consider such poor decision-making if their names ever appear on a ballot again.

But please don’t let their foolishness divert you from the need for this money. Since the announcement, Budish and Brady have clearly articulated how they would spend it, and the causes are good.

As important, Budish and his cabinet have created an accountability system for this money — ways to measure the success of programs this tax would create or sustain. In addition, MetroHealth CEO Akram Boutros and John Corlett, head of the Center for Community Solutions, have vowed to be watchdogs on the spending. At cleveland.com, so have we.

We feel confident, then, that the tax will not be squandered.

So what is it for? This is a partial list.

Each year, $5 million would preserve a big increase in children attending quality pre-kindergarten programs. Budish committed $10 million to this when he was first elected and persuaded the private sector to kick in another $13 million. Our yearlong First 2000 Days project, sponsored by PNC Bank a few years back, proved how important quality pre-k is for children at risk.

Another $6 million would go to kinship care for neglected and abused children. Today, too many of those children are in foster care, but if they lived with aunts, uncles or grandparents, their prospects would improve. The county cannot afford to pay relatives what it pays foster parents. This money would change that.

More than $5 million a year would eliminate the dangerous delays people in crisis face when they call for help. By providing help as soon as possible, the tax increase would improve the chances of those most at risk.

Eliminating waiting lists for seniors seeking help with meals, in-home assistance and other services would cost $2 million of the tax increase. Seniors are our fastest growing population.

More than $2 million would be for homeless families and young adults, getting them into permanent housing. And $2.5 million would go for mental health services and addiction treatment for people who commit crimes. Imprisoning addicts is not the answer. Treatment is.

One other point: We know you might reject this increase by rationalizing that the county just cleared an extra $100 million in its settlements with pharmaceutical companies that caused the opioid crisis. That money, though, is for what the crisis has cost the county. The tax increase is for needs beyond the opioid crisis.

This is a simple choice. Your neighbors are hurting. A “yes” vote here will ease their pain. Please vote yes.

Online: https://bit.ly/36A81Tp

___

Time to rethink how, or even whether, we elect judges in Ohio?

Columbus Dispatch

Jan. 7

Should candidates for judge in Ohio be listed on ballots by political party? Should they be on ballots at all?

Both questions arise from time to time when Ohioans ponder the best way to ensure that judges are competent and impartial and that people feel they have a stake in the judicial system.

It’s the latter challenge - making Ohioans more involved and informed - that leads some to say that Ohioans voting for judges should know candidates’ party affiliations. House Bill 460, recently introduced by Republican Rep. Stephen Hambley of Brunswick and Democratic Rep. Michael Skindell of Lakewood, would let judicial candidates choose whether or not to have a party label.

The sponsors say it would help voters be less clueless when faced with a judicial ballot. Indeed, half of all Ohio voters in a 2014 poll said they don’t vote for judges as regularly as other offices because they don’t know much about the candidates.

Knowing the candidate’s political party would at least give a clue to his or her philosophy, the argument goes.

Currently, judge candidates in Ohio run in partisan primaries and are nominated as Republicans or Democrats. But once they’re nominated, on the general election ballot they’re listed without party label. Ohio is the only state to do it that way.

The argument for keeping party labels off of the judicial ballot is, of course, that judges are supposed to be above political interests, guided only by the law.

Identifying judge candidates as Ds or Rs might induce more voters to choose one or the other, but would it also be an unhealthy incentive for would-be judges to try to distinguish themselves with partisan-sounding statements?

Judicial campaigning typically is uninspiring at best, precisely because judicial canons prohibit candidates from saying anything to indicate how they would rule on any matter. That can make substantive discussion of issues difficult.

We welcome a Statehouse debate on this question. Making judicial campaigns more meaningful is a good goal, even if we aren’t certain partisan labels are the answer.

And while lawmakers are at it, the other perennial question - whether judges should be appointed instead of elected - likely will come up again, too. Many experts make a good argument that having judges appointed, then requiring them to run periodically to earn the right to stay on the bench, would draw high-quality adjudicators who aren’t willing to run as first-time candidates.

Whatever the merits, one shouldn’t ignore the fact that Ohio voters have had the chance several times to have certain judges appointed instead of elected and they’ve voted strongly against it each time.

Yet another worthy question is whether, as long as judges are elected, they should continue to be allowed to solicit and accept campaign donations. This one seems an easier call: A judge has far more power than any other elected official to directly benefit or disadvantage people. If any elected officials should be insulated from fundraising pressure, it should be judges.

Perhaps Hambley and Skindell should consider amending their bill to add a prohibition on judicial candidates accepting campaign contributions and provide an alternative way to fund their campaigns.

If judgeships in Ohio are going to remain elected positions, voters need to know more about the candidates. Partisan labels may or may not help. Freeing judges from fundraising certainly would increase public confidence in their impartiality.

Online: https://bit.ly/39LrP8l

___