An Analysis of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judicial Candidate Ratings

By

Brown and Associates Consulting Services

Gregory L. Brown, MSUS, President

And

Elaine Sutton, Ph.D., Senior Management and Research Consultant

1
 An Overview of the Judicial Candidate’s Ratings Process

The following is an exploratory review of methods and criteria used for

rating judicial candidates. Mean averages will be used to draw comparisons.

A group of organizations/agencies formed a collective called Judge4Yourself.com.

Judge4 Youeself.com is a service of the Judicial Candidates Rating Coalition and it
was formed for the purpose of providing perspective for voters. The group
attempts to convey, in simple language, whether or not they think a candidate
will make a good judge. Several lawyers and other volunteers on a yearly basis,
four days per year to review questionnaires, interview candidates and develop
ratings. The organizations involved in the collective are:

• The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association

• The Norman S. Minor Bar Association
• THE Ohio Women’s Bar Association
• The Cuyahoga County Bar Association

Evaluation Criteria

Each Judge4Yourself.com organization rates candidates based on the following

criteria: judicial temperament; integrity; diligence; community understanding;
and professional competence.

Integrity

When the group is evaluating integrity, they consider the candidate’s

ethics, character, and his/her reputation in the community. They are specifically
looking for a candidate’s ability to show impartiality and independence;
trustworthiness; compliance with the law; and a general commitment to equal
justice under the law.

2
Judicial Temperament

Judicial Temperament refers to the candidate’s ability to conduct

him/herself in a manner that is dignified; tactful; respectful; objective; patient;
open-minded and compassionate. Additionally, this refers to the candidate’s
ability to work well with other judges and court officials; to be willing to listen to
unpopular ideas; and to reframe from coercing settlements.

Diligence

When evaluating diligence, the group is looking for reliability; punctuality;

pre-trial and hearing preparedness; and efficiency. Additionally, they would like to
see that candidates can issue decisions in a timely fashion; use resources and
court time wisely; and that they comply with the Rules of Superintendence.

Professional Competence

As for professional competence, the group is looking for legal knowledge;

sound professional judgement; courtroom experience and absence of prejudice
based on gender; race; age; disability; religion; sexual orientation; marital status;
or political affiliation.

Community Involvement and Understanding

Community Involvement is also an important aspect of the evaluation.

Work in areas such as teaching at a law school; being an active member in the bar
association; doing pro bono work and community or public service; and diversity
of life experience are all considered in this category.

3
 Data Collection and Analysis

Source of Data (May 8, 2018 Primary Judicial Candidate Ratings-Cuyahoga

County Court of Common Pleas-General Division)

The data collected by this group was reviewed and the following mean
averages compared.

Caucasian Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (2.75) , Candidate 2 (3.5),

Candidate 3 (3.0), Candidate 4 (2.0), Candidate 5 (4.0), Candidate 6 (1.25),
Candidate 7 (0), Candidate 8 (3.25), Candidate 9 (3.75)

Caucasian Overall Average: Total 23.50/9= 2.6

African American Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (0), Candidate 2(0.5),

Candidate 3 (3.5), Candidate 4 (2.5)

African American Overall Average: Total 6.5/4= 1.63

Source of Data (Ratings for Election to Cleveland, South Euclid, Lyndhurst,

Cleveland Heights Municipal Court, 2017)

Caucasian Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (4.0), Candidate 2 (3.3),

Candidate 3 (2.3), Candidate 4 (3.3), Candidate 5 (4.0), Candidate 6 (2.6),
Candidate 7 (3.0), Candidate 8 (3.0), Candidate 9 (4.0), Candidate 10 (0),
Candidate 11 (4.0), Candidate 12 (3.3), Candidate 13 (3.3)

Caucasian Overall Average: Total 40.1/13=3.1

Hispanic Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (3.6), Candidate 2 (3.0)

Hispanic Overall Average: Total 6.6/2=3.3

African American Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (2.6), Candidate

2(2.0), Candidate 3(0), Candidate 4 (2.3), Candidate 5( 0), Candidate 6 (2.0) ,
Candidate 7(3.0)

African American Overall Average: Total 11.9/7=1.7

4
 Data Collection and Analysis

The data collected by this group was reviewed and the following mean
averages compared.

State Elections (Ohio Justice of the Supreme Court, 2016)

Caucasian Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (4.0), Candidate 2 (3.6),

Candidate 3 (3.6), Candidate 4 (4.0)

Caucasian Overall Average: Total 15.2/4= 3.8

Local Elections (Judge of the Court of Common Pleas-General Division-Slot 1,

2016)

Caucasian Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (2.0), Candidate 2 (3.0)

Caucasian Overall Average: Total 5.00/2=2.5

Local Elections (Judge of the Court of Common Pleas-General Division-Slot 2,

2016)

Caucasian Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (3.0), Candidate 2 (3.25)

Caucasian Overall Average: Total 6.25/2=3.13

Local Elections (Judge of the Court of Common Pleas-General Division-Slot 3,

2016)

Caucasian Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (4.0)

Caucasian Overall Average: Total 4.00/1=4.0

5
African American Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (2.25)

African American Overall Average: Total 2.25/1=2.25

Local Elections (Judge of the Court of Common Pleas-Domestic Relations-Slot 1,

2016)

Caucasian Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (1.5), Candidate 2 (3.0)

Caucasian Overall Average: Total 4.50/2=2.25

Local Elections (Judge of the Court of Common Pleas-Domestic Relations-Slot 2,

2016)

Caucasian Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (4.0), Candidate 2 (0.0)

Caucasian Overall Average: Total 4.00/2=2.0

Local Elections (Judge of the Court of Common Pleas-Domestic Relations-Slot 3,

2016)

Caucasian Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (3.75)

Caucasian Overall Average: Total 3.75/1= 3.75

African American Judicial Candidates Ratings: Candidate 1 (3.0)

African American Overall Average: Total 3.00/1=3.00

6
 Analysis of Results for the Judicial Candidates for Court of Common Pleas as
Compared to the Municipal Court

When comparing overall mean average scores of African Americans

candidates versus Caucasian candidates, there are differences to note. For
example, the overall average for Caucasian judicial candidates for the Court of
Common Pleas was 2.6, as compared to African American judicial candidates
which was 1.63.

Another comparison to note falls under the category of the Domestic

Relations division of the Court of Common Pleas where the overall average for the
Caucasian candidate was 3.75 and the overall average for the African American
candidate was 3.0. In this particular instance, although the African American
candidate received a lower average rating, she was elected to the office and holds
the honor of being the first African American female to serve in the position in the
court’s 97 year history.

For purposes of comparison, ratings for judicial candidates for the

Municipal Court for 2017 were also analyzed. Once again, African American
candidates had lower overall average scores (1.7) as compared to Caucasian
judicial candidates with overall average scores of 3.1.

There were significant differences in the ratings of African American judicial

candidates as compared to their Caucasian counterparts. This is a cause for
concern. One could reasonably ask what causes the differences. There are a
number of question that need to be addressed by impartial research and
investigation to ascertain if the rating process is fair and just for all candidates.

Some questions to consider are:

• Are all African Americans seeking judicial positions in Cuyahoga County

unprepared and unqualified to serve? If so, why?
• Is the rating system currently being used culturally and politically biased?
• Are the elements used to rate candidates objective?

7
 • Or are they subjective, leaving each person involved in the rating process
too much latitude in assigning rating scores and who will be recommended
and who will not?
• And are there other factors than those being considered that might be
better suited to rate candidates and would provide a more equitable basis
for decision-making?

The research conducted by Brown and Associates Consulting Services looked

at a very limited sample. So it is difficult to make any general statements based on
the data collected and the corresponding analysis. But as stated earlier, the data
based on a point in time is troubling in an environment where the community
climate is trending towards greater diversity and inclusion in all aspect of our
society’s public and civic systems and structures.

We believe that further study and research is needed to discover if this

point in time analysis is representative of a deeper and more significant trend in
the rating of judicial candidates. By conducting further research, more data over a
greater period of time will be collected. This will enable this community to better
understand if this trend is indeed true and to gain insights regarding how to
address this community concern.