The Republican Party's version of musical chairs continues in Columbus. Attorney General Betty Montgomery, term-limited out of her job, is running this fall for auditor, while Auditor Jim Petro, also term-limited, runs for attorney general.
Treasurer Joe Deters, who was talked out of running for attorney general, has decided to re-up in his current post. Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, talked out of running for governor four years ago so Bob Taft could assume the position, is also up for re-election. Lt. Governor Maureen O'Connor leaves Taft's side to run for the Ohio Supreme Court.
And, of course, Taft served eight years as secretary of state before winning the governor's job -- a career path Blackwell is poised to follow.
The maneuvering leaves one with an unsavory mental picture of a small group of politicians sitting around a room in the state capital dividing the spoils -- one for you, two for me, attorney general for you, treasurer for me. And with the GOP's utter dominance in Ohio -- both houses of the legislature, both U.S. senators -- the spoils are easy pickings.
How exactly have these maneuverings benefitted you and me, the citizens of Ohio? Beats the hell out of me.
I suppose that, if things were going swimmingly well across Buckeye Land, there would be little reason to complain. It's all about the results, right? No one's forcing people to vote for the Republicans, correct?
Maybe I'm missing something, but things don't seem to be going that well in Ohio. We face a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, state officials lack the will or creativity to solve the school funding impasse, state officials work to sabotage innovative ideas such as single-payer health insurance and treatment for nonviolent drug offenders and one of the state's major cities, Cincinnati, is struggling mightily to resolve racial equality and police misconduct issues.
Here's a simple question posed at almost every election: Are you (Ohioans) better off today than you were four years ago? Not many of us are -- except for those GOP officials switching office furniture up in Columbus.
Governor: Tim Hagan
The Democrat challenger says that when he campaigns in Hamilton County he gets a little spooked by all the Taft references here -- Taft Museum, Taft High School, William Howard Taft Birthplace, etc. "I'm running against a statue," he says of his opponent, Gov. Bob Taft.
That description of the current governor works on just about every level. Budget shortfalls? Oops. Schools suck? Uhhh. College tuition jacked up? Well.... His hometown has race riots? Yeah, but....
Tim Hagan says his top priorities once elected would be fixing the budget mess and improving funding for public schools and higher education. Good priorities. He says we'll have to deal honestly with revenue issues regarding the budget and the schools -- issues that neighboring states like Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania are handling much more successfully.
When asked what he would have done differently as governor when racial tensions exploded here in 2001, Hagan -- a former Cuyahoga County commissioner -- says he would have come to town to bring reasonable people together to work out differences and clear the air of animosity and distrust. He would have embraced the difficult issues as ones to be solved by all of Ohio, not just Cincinnati. He would have cared.
That's the kind of governor Ohio deserves.
Secretary of State: Bryan Flannery
We've admired Ken Blackwell over the years for his often maverick approach to political issues, but he's lately become the same Republican lapdog as his colleagues in Columbus. As pointed out in this week's cover story, Ohio's election mechanism remains largely outdated, jeopardizing the ability of many Ohioans -- particularly the poor and minorities -- to have their vote count. Blackwell, as incumbents tend to do, seems to think changing the status quo isn't much of a priority.
The final straw was Blackwell's recent ruling that shot down Democrat Bruce Whitman's challenge of Republican Fred Nelson's qualifications for the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Blackwell ruled that the county's board of elections can't hold a hearing to determine whether Nelson has the requisite six years of experience practicing law in Ohio. Either he does or he doesn't. Hear the challenge.
Challenger Bryan Flannery, a state representative from suburban Cleveland, wants the secretary of state to be more concerned with fairness for all Ohioans. He'd make fixing the state's election system a real priority, budget deficit or not. Sounds like the right goal.
Treasurer: Mary Boyle
The controversy surrounding the connection between Treasurer Joe Deters' campaign contributors and their work for the state continues to grow -- everywhere but in Cincinnati, where you wouldn't know anything was amiss unless you read online versions of The Columbus Dispatch or Cleveland Plain Dealer. They're serious allegations, and they continue to hang around.
Challenger Mary Boyle, a former state representative and Cuyahoga County commissioner, wants to improve returns on the state's investments while also opening up competition among the dozens of firms seeking state investment work. Again, as an incumbent, Deters doesn't make challenging the status quo a huge priority.
Deters didn't want to be treasurer any longer but had a bigger office in mind; when the musical chairs stopped, he was left to run for re-election. We suggest putting someone in the office who wants to be there.
Issue 1: Constitutional Amendment for Drug Treatment: Yes
This amendment would change how the state deals with first- or second-time offenders convicted of illegal possession of a drug, offering them the opportunity to choose treatment instead of jail time. The state would be required to spend $247 million over the next seven years to pay for new treatment programs.
Everyone knows Ohio's prisons are overcrowded, many with drug users who have harmed no one else in their actions. There's a groundswell of support across the country to deal with drug users through alternative methods, leaving prisons for violent criminals who need to be locked away from society. There's no reason to intermingle nonviolent drug offenders with violent criminals, and there's no reason to create crowded prison conditions that cause violent criminals to be released early.
Fewer than 5 percent of eligible drug offenders have access to Ohio's current paltry drug court system, and if passed Issue 1 would extend that to all eligible offenders -- which is only drug users, not those convicted of selling drugs or of violent crime in connection with drugs.
In states where similar treatment options exist, those who go through treatment are unlikely to be arrested again. In Dade County, Fla., for instance, only 11 percent of drug court graduates reenter the judicial system, compared to a 60 percent recidivism rate for jailed drug offenders. In Arizona, 78 percent of drug court graduates remain drug-free. In Rochester, N.Y., drug courts cut a 70 percent recidivism rate to 11 percent. Even here in Hamilton County, the home of Ohio's first drug court, the program reduced recidivism rates by 26 percent.
Such treatment programs quickly pay for themselves. The U.S. Department of Justice, which offers grants for the establishment and operation of drug courts, reports that for every dollar spent on Portland, Ore.'s drug court system the city saved $2.50 in criminal justice expenses and an additional $7.50 on other crime-related costs, such as those related to theft and victimization. An Arizona study revealed that its successful drug court program saved taxpayers $2.5 million in its first year of operation by keeping offenders out of expensive prisons.
Issue 1 sounds like a humane, proactive approach representing a huge change in the state's understanding of and approach to drug offenses and offenders. It also reduces the long-term costs to society by spending money now on treatment programs in order to save money later within the justice system.
And it seems an even better idea when you consider how hard the Taft administration tried to keep Issue 1 from the voters, using improper and potentially illegal means to try to derail the initiative before it even reached the ballot. What don't they want us to know? Why don't they trust us to make the right decision? ©
Printer-friendly version
