Return balance to the high court; vote for Brown and Trapp

In Ohio, justices are nominated in partisan primaries but then elected to six-year terms in a non-partisan general election. Both Brown and Trapp are Democrats, while their respective opponents, incumbent Justices Maureen O'Connor and Judith Lanzinger, are Republicans.

Another incumbent justice, Republican Paul Pfeifer, is unopposed for re-election.

Brown, whom Gov. Ted Strickland appointed as chief justice in May following the untimely death of Thomas Moyer, has served in various judicial capacities, as well as in private practice and as a school board member in suburban Cleveland. He served ably in the Ohio Attorney General's office under both Democrat Lee Fisher and Republican Betty Montgomery. With the latter, he led the state's tobacco litigation.

At every turn, he has impressed with his sharp legal mind and independent approach to the law. In his short tenure as chief justice, Brown's impressive work has suggested that Strickland wasn't just playing politics when he chose him for the position.

O'Connor has performed satisfactorily in her eight years on the high court, and also has an impressive resume, having served as lieutenant governor, director of the state Department of Public Safety, and judge and prosecutor in the Akron area. Like the late Tom Moyer, O'Connor has shown an interest in de-emphasizing partisanship on the Supreme Court.

However, while both Brown and O'Connor are attractive and able candidates, we feel that the need for more balance on the 6-1 Republican-dominated high court tips the scales toward Brown. All else being the same, we'd rather the court keep at least one Democrat. Ohio isn't overwhelmingly Republican, and its highest court shouldn't be either, whether it calls itself nonpartisan or not.

For similar reasons we prefer Mary Jane Trapp for the other contested seat on the Supreme Court. Trapp, presiding judge of the 11^th District Court of Appeals in northeast Ohio, received a perfect score from the nonpartisan Judicial Candidates Rating Coalition, while her opponent, Judith Lanzinger, received an unimpressive "adequate to good" rating from the same group.

Trapp also is a respected author of articles on a broad range of legal issues, and has actively served on a variety of Supreme Court-appointed task forces and boards.

Some of Lanzinger's rulings, meanwhile, suggest the crying need for more ideological balance on the high court. As the Toledo Blade pointed out in its endorsement of Trapp, "Justice Lanzinger voted for the executive privilege (for fellow Republican Gov. Bob Taft). She also voted with the high court's majority this year for a bizarre ruling that a police officer's guess is all that's needed to convict a motorist for speeding."

In addition, she was part of an Ohio Supreme Court that earned negative attention for its partisan leanings, when The New York Times reported in 2006 that the Ohio high court's justices ruled in favor of campaign contributors 79 percent of the time. Lanzinger, who was relatively new to the court at the time, ruled in a dozen cases involving contributors to her campaign, siding with those contributors 75 percent of the time. (O'Connor didn't do much better, ruling in favor of campaign contributors 74 percent of the time.) Neither recused (voluntarily withdrew) herself from these cases.

More recently, Ohio Citizen Action reported that half the money raised by Republican Justices O'Connor and Lanzinger has come from insurance companies, a powerful interest group that often argues cases before the high court.

It's clear that Ohio needs more balance and independence on its Supreme Court. This election, if Ohioans vote for Eric Brown for chief justice and Mary Jane Trapp for justice, they'll get balance, and no small amount of experience, legal know-how and brains. Vote for Brown and Trapp.