Former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor joins All Sides to talk about judicial independence in a time of partisanship, an effort to nationalize elections, and a movement by chief justices around the U.S. to push back on what some legal scholars view as executive overreach into the judiciary. Is it?
She served as chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court from 2011 through 2022.
O'Connor's insights will provide us an in-depth look at the issue on this hour of All Sides.
Guest:
- Maureen O'Connor, former Ohio Supreme Court chief justice
This transcript is generated with AI. To ensure its accuracy, review the audio file.
Amy Juravich Welcome to All Sides with Amy Juravich. Former chief justices around the country are speaking out about judicial independence. They're part of the bipartisan alliance of former chief justices, and that includes Ohio's Maureen O'Connor. She served as chief justice from 2011 through 2022, the first woman to do so. And she's here today to talk about this initiative, the future of the judiciary, and will also reflect on her career of public service.
Welcome to All Sides, Justice O'Connor. Pleasure to be here, thank you. Well, it doesn't sound like you have been doing much retiring after retirement here. I said you left the bench in 2022, but at a quick glance, you were involved in a lot of things. And I also read you got a puppy, so you're very busy. Oh yeah, I have a one.
Maureen O’Connor Oh yeah, I have a one-year-old puppy.
Amy Juravich Yes. So that'll keep you busy. But let's start with this. The Alliance of Former Chief Justices. It's an initiative from a nonpartisan group that is called Keep Our Republic. The website says it focuses on initiatives that reinforce the guardrails of American democracy. So tell me why you decided to get involved in this alliance of former chief justices.
Maureen O’Connor Speaking with several of my colleagues, the former Chief Justice of Hawaii and Kansas and former Chief justice of Texas. And we talked about, you know, this bringing together on a nonpartisan basis, a group of chief justices, former chiefs, you We're all retired, so we have the ability to speak freely. Our judiciary in this country is under attack, okay, individual judges because of the opinions that they've rendered, and it's not just in the state courts, it's also in the federal courts.
There is a group of retired federal judges who are in place, also working with Keep Our Republic, to respond to attacks on the federal judiciary. We're interested in a tax on state judges. Usually judges are all painted with one brush, but the public I think mostly understands that we have a state system and we have the federal system. I always like to say that the federal judiciary, our federal court system handles about 4% of the cases that are filed in this country, and 96% are filed with the state courts.
So that gives you a perspective on how important the judges are. Are in the United States, in the individual states. We're all selected differently. Some are elected. I was elected statewide to be on the Supreme Court. I was selected statewide to the Chief Justice. Others are appointed and retained, et cetera.
So there's a variety of methods for judges to attain their position. But, they pretty much all do the same thing. They hear cases if they're on the trial level, and then they render decisions, opinions. They conduct jury trials. Then you have your appellate level, which if you're dissatisfied at the trial level, you can always appeal to the district court judges. They render opinion, and usually it stops there, okay? Very rarely do people want to go to the Supreme Court of the state. And we have guidelines, all courts do, on what type of cases we take in. We don't take in cases that are not of great public import or constitutional issues or that sort of thing.
So the opinions get rendered and the decisions occur and then people, it used to be just the parties attack the judiciary, you know? And threatened judges, people who had a stake That's the case, but now. There is a danger that is being fomented against judges because of the rhetoric, the rhetoric that's out there, not from the parties, not from opposing counsel in these cases, but for people on high, elected officials.
Our president is a perfect example, started attacking the judiciary when he had the Trump university case. That judge was of Hispanic descent, and for that reason, he was denigrated by Trump. And that opened the door for all of this negativity that is directed towards the judiciary.
Amy Juravich Do you feel like people didn't speak out as directly before against judges and President Trump kind of started it because he, that's how he speaks to everyone basically.
Maureen O’Connor It was more than Trump, well, yes, it was the leadership of Trump and him opening the path for this. But the basis for his criticism of judges is he makes it on a personal level. He attacks them, you know, because of the-
Amy Juravich As humans, instead of further ruling, yeah.
Maureen O’Connor Precisely, and then he says such derogatory things and then people who don't know any better or that like that sort of stuff, they pick up the gauntlet and judges are the worst for it. I mean, we have judges who have been attacked, been shot, have to increase security, can't places because of the threats. They have to be looking over their shoulder. And these, again, are not parties to the case for the most part. They're people that are philosophically doing this.
Amy Juravich In an open letter from your alliance that you belong to that they issued in December, it evokes comments from founding father, America's fourth president, James Madison. And it says, accumulating the immense powers of the government in the same hands may justly be pronounced as the very definition of tyranny. So I wanted you to talk about that, about the way that this was set up. It's supposed to be three branches of government, but... It seems like it's not. They're blending together more and more nowadays. Well, they shouldn't be.
Maureen O’Connor If that is the perception. We're talking on the federal level right now. We have obviously the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. The legislative branch, our Congress, is pretty much inert. That's just my personal opinion. It is the Congress is not doing. And in fact, there was just something I read the other day that the Supreme Court just did the job of Congress with that opinion that they issued about the tariffs. Yes, which is something Congress should have intervened early on and said, hold it, you know, tariffs are our lane.
But anyway, all this power is being concentrated in the executive branch. It is the antithesis of what our founding fathers. Believed in and thought they were setting up. However, they did recognize that that could be a threat, that at some point there might be a person who would occupy the White House, well it wasn't the White House then, but be president and try to amass this power. And there have been presidents before that have tried to, as I said, step out of their and accumulate.
For example, President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to pack the court, the Supreme Court. He didn't like the decisions. They were setting aside his decisions of that were public works, et cetera, et cetera. And he said, well, we'll just put more justices on of my choosing. It didn't work. He wasn't allowed to do it. But that notion has.
Amy Juravich You know there's a life to it. This is All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. We're talking with former chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O'Connor. She's a part of the alliance of former chief justices advocating for judicial independence. I wanted to pivot to talk about elections a little bit. President Trump raised not just concerns but alarm bells with his comments in early February about nationalizing elections. I want to play some audio and then you comment. His first remarks came on a podcast. Where his former FBI director, and he said this.
Donald Trump The Republicans should say, we want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least many, 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.
Amy Juravich And then on February 3rd, reporters at the White House asked him to elaborate, clarify what he meant, and then he said this.
Speaker 5 I want to see elections be honest. And if a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it. Because, you know, if you think about it, a state is an agent for the federal government in elections. I don't know why the federal doesn't do them anyway.
Amy Juravich So what comes to mind when you hear these comments about the state is an agent of the federal government, there should be federal elections?
Maureen O’Connor The one phrase that he said, I don't know why they don't do it, okay? He doesn't understand government, and that is at the heart of what's happening on the federal level. There's someone in office who, number one, is not there to be a public servant. We have so many people that are in elected positions that do not have the heart of a public servant.
And I feel very, very strongly about that, having been a public servant for decades. I know what it takes. I know which your view has to be. I know your goals have to be, and they're lacking. And that is, I think, at the basis of why we hear things like we're going to federalize the state elections and the states are agents of the federal government. The states control, by design, the elections in their states. You know, it preserves the independence of elections and the election process. It, you know, we have 50 states and they're not all the same.
And that's another thing that is so misunderstood. You know it's a cookie cutter, it's one size fits all. Why don't we just do it this way? No, we've got 50 states for a reason. And they do things differently. They all hold elections. I think The basis for the president's comments here is he believes that he won the election in 2020. And there is absolutely no evidence of that.
And he will not accept it. And therefore, if the feds take over elections, they can be manipulated and, you know, thy will be done. And you just can't do that.
Amy Juravich Well, related to that, in January, the FBI raided an elections office in Georgia to investigate so-called discrepancies from the 2020 election. They seized 700 boxes of ballots, and this is in the lead up to the midterm elections. So as we're talking about, we're leading up to midterm election, they're going into an elections in Georgia related to 2020. What are you paying attention to when it comes to all of this talk about elections as we head to the midterms.
Maureen O’Connor I'm paying attention to the choices that we're going to have in the midterm. And here in Ohio, we're gonna have elections for Congress, our congressional delegation. They're using a gerrymandered map. We have gerrymander maps on the books. You know, after I retired, December 31st, 2022, told everybody I was going to take four months off and do absolutely nothing. I was gonna do...
Amy Juravich Did you do that?
Maureen O’Connor Well, I wanted to see the Italians have a phrase, it's el dolce farniente, it is the sweetness of doing nothing. And I wanted find out what that felt like. My first redistricting meeting was the first week in January of 2023. And so I have no idea what it's like to do the sweetness of doing nothing So, yeah, I am very much concerned about the fact of gerrymandering and what has happened in the last year with regards to this country and gerrymandering, and what was done in Ohio with this latest congressional map.
And by the way, these are my opinions. We started talking about the alliance of former chief justices, and that's one bucket that I'm, you know, have working and paying attention to. But, you know, I have a lot of other roles that I play and or take on and what I'm talking about now is, you now, my observations and I think that we have to be on guard as to what's going to transpire this November and the attempt to suppress the vote, which I think is going to be there.
Amy Juravich Elections officials here in Ohio and other states, of course, but especially here in Ohio, they always maintain that we have safe and secure elections. How is Ohio's election system designed to protect voters, prevent political interference? I mean, do you feel like Ohio does do a good job with its elections?
Maureen O’Connor I think Ohio does do a good job at the poll places. People get in, they vote, et cetera. They have it down to a science on how that happens. Of course, people have to produce identification. That's only fair. We've all voted. You know how easy it is to walk in there and vote. Now, at one point, I stood in line for two hours to vote. You know, that was an election, presidential election years ago.
But my point is that it's a system and it's the system that works. And the misdirection to non-citizens voting is just that, it's misdirections. It's an attempt to distract people and make them lose faith in our election. And, and when. That is what the interference is going to be to denigrate the election process, to call into question the validity of the elections, and then to deter people from actually going to the polling place and voting. And that is a very diabolical
Amy Juravich This is All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. We are talking with former Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O'Connor, about work she's been doing since she retired from the court. She's anything but retired. And we'll talk about some of the other groups that she's working with when All Sides continues on 89, 7 NPR news.
Amy Juravich You're listening to All Sides. I'm your host, Amy Juravich. We're talking this hour with Maureen O'Connor, former Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court. She was the first woman to serve in that role from 2011 through 2022. She left the court due to mandatory age limits. And she's now a part of the Alliance of Former Chief Justices, advocating for judicial independence. Thank you again for being with us today, Justice O'Connor.
Maureen O’Connor My pleasure.
Amy Juravich An open letter issued by the Alliance emphasizes the distinction between. Judges who answer the rule of law and elected officials who serve in a specific district or an area. So judges are elected officials for the most part, sometimes they're appointed, but why is it important to make that distinction, you know, that judges answer the rule-of-law and that's different than an elected official?
Maureen O’Connor Well, I think we all have to pay attention to the rule of law, elected officials, citizens. The rule of is for everybody. It governs the governed, those that govern, and those that are governed. So the rule law is paramount. And people say, well, what is the rule of law? And the rule is law is just a combination of things. It is, it's our institutions, it is our heritage, it's our culture, it the way we, the courts have operated, it is precedent, it's the law itself. And that takes, the concept is that you're faithful to the rule of law, you're not faithful to an individual or to a cause or if it conflicts with the rule of law. And the rule law is meant for, to apply to everybody so there's equality under the law.
Due process applies to everybody. Due process is an institution. When you go to court, you're not rushed from here's your appearance and now you're going to be sentenced. No, there's got to be something that happens in between, doesn't there? Or you go court, here you are, and by the way, your child just got taken away from you. What do you mean? There wasn't, okay, that's not the rule of law and that's due process. So, the rule of law... Ensures that there is an institution and that things like due process takes place and your rights are protected.
They do whole courses in law school about the rule of law, and I'm just kind of cramming it in right now. But let's talk about the selection of judges, okay? And what people ... Well, first of all, I'm not sure that everybody appreciates of the role of a judge. People think, and this is because judges are elected, that they're political actors. That, and in our state, we have the political designation for both the Supreme Court candidates and for the Appellate Court candidates, which I think is a terrible, terrible practice because it reinforces, oh, well that person is a Democrat. Oh, that person's a Republican. Well, what does that tell me? Oh, you know.
Amy Juravich It's a relatively new practice. The change on Ohio's ballot, the rule went into effect in 2021, meaning party affiliation for some judicial races, including the Supreme Court. So there's a D for a Democrat next to the name and R for a Republican. So does that mean that anytime you ran, you never had that D or R? I never, we were nonpartisan.
Maureen O’Connor That's what you're supposed to be. See, judges are supposed to be nonpartisan. If a judge pays attention to their political registration, to the will or wishes of their political party, to an elected office holder from a political party. And they bring that into the courtroom with them on how they make decisions. They don't deserve to sit on the bench or wear a robe.
You don't bring politics, your political persuasions, into the courtroom. But people, because we have elections and now because the legislature put those requirements that the political designation, that reinforces in people's minds, oh, they are politicians in robes, and I've heard that many times, and that's just not the case. You would be violating judicial ethics if you let your politics interfere on how you your job as a judge.
So, you know, a judge is, the most important thing is for a judge to be independent. And I don't mean, and we talk about judicial independence and I don't want to, independence sometimes has the wrong connotation that, oh, they're sitting up there and they're independent and they can do whatever they want. That's what it means to be dependent. Not at all.
You're independent of the, you now, the pressures that I just talked about. The influences I just talk about. You operate independent of that sort of stuff. You don't let that seep into how you do your job, but you are dependent to the rule of law. You are faithful to the rule of the law, how the law is written, how it's been interpreted by higher courts, and then how you have to apply it to the situation before you. And that's what is meant by the independence of the judiciary.
It should be, you know, the. The non-influence of the judiciary. There can't be anything other than the rule of law. When I, you know, during my last year, I think everybody knows that there were legal cases with regards to the redistricted maps. There were seven redistrict maps and I voted.
Amy Juravich Oh, that little thing, yes.
Maureen O’Connor Yeah, they were unconstitutional seven times. And it was, you know, the majority of the court voted that they were in unconstitution seven times, unfortunately, the federal court was also involved in the federal courts said, Well, you have to have a map. So if you don't come up with a constitutional map by May 31, then you're going to use the third map. He's telling this to the Secretary of State. So do you think that the Redistricting Commission was motivated to come up with the constitutional map when they knew that they just had to wait the clock out And then they could use the third unconstitutional map.
So anyway, that's what happened The, some of the mail that I got, you know, as a result of that, I saved it. You know, it wasn't an overwhelming amount, but it was things like, you're a Republican, I voted for you because you're Republican, and you're not voting like a Republican. You know? I'm so disappointed, and why are you not voting? This was the tenor of the letters. And I said to myself, these people do not understand the role of a judge. Certainly not the role of the Supreme Court, that you're a puppet.
Amy Juravich Of a party? No, no. You withstood a lot of criticism within your own party after making those decisions related to redistricting. In April of 2022, Secretary of State Frank LaRose did not back down from impeachment comments regarding you when asked about it. Here's what he said to the Ohio Capital Journal.
Frank LaRose Someone asked me the question and I answered it honestly. I have concerns that the court has delved very deeply into politics and is starting to do things that are really not in the constitution, like ordering us to have hired a out-of-state independent map maker and some of these other things. Again, that's up to the legislature to decide. All I said was that I would be fine with it.
Amy Juravich So what did you make of all of those impeachment comments, having all of the members of the Republican Party mad at you for voting against these maps time and time again? What do you think of? How do you reflect back on that time?
Maureen O’Connor Well, I didn't lose any sleep. They did things like take my picture down from party headquarters.
Amy Juravich Yeah, I was going to get to that.
Maureen O’Connor And then I think one local party turned my picture to the wall, you know, I mean, it's all political drama. You know, it didn't, I don't know what their intent was. Do they think I was going to be emotionally wounded by it? You know? Absolutely not. And see, I know that there were articles of impeachment drafted, you know, over in the legislature. What that tells me is that... Even our lawmakers don't understand our Constitution. Did they read it? I mean, there's no basis for impeaching someone based on their opinion, a judge, certainly not the chief justice. And I responded, well, I had three other people that voted the same way. Are you going to impeach them, too? No, it was all directed at me. And it was directed at by these highly partisan Republicans.
Amy Juravich And show boats. This is All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. We're talking with former Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O'Connor. I wanted to mention that we did reach out to the current Chief Justice, Sharon Kennedy, to invite her to be on the show at some point for her own one-on-one interview. Her office wrote back saying, thank you for the invitation and interest in the Supreme Court of Ohio. We are not able to accommodate an interview at this time, but appreciate the opportunity. And I just wanted to ask your opinion on that. Is it difficult for judges to give interviews? I mean, you said you're speaking here. You know, you're not in office. You're speaking for you, right? Do you think it's difficult for, I mean I don't know whether Chief Justice Kennedy was busy or just doesn't want to come on the show. Either way, it doesn't matter. But can a current justice sitting on the court come and do an interview?
Maureen O’Connor Absolutely. I mean, there's guidelines, of course. You're not going to, for example, judges can't discuss cases that are coming in front of them and how they would vote on them, or even the merits of cases that come before us. They can explain, if they want to, the meaning of cases they've already issued. But I don't think that's what you were talking about for an interview, you'd want to know more about. You know, this initiative, maybe this program that the court is backing or a change in, you know something, a process. You know, yeah there's a lot to talk about that from, you know if you're on the Supreme Court, if you are Chief Justice of the Supreme court, you know when I was on the court I gave a lot of interviews, you now on media but also in person to groups. You know, explaining what we did during COVID, for example, how the courts stayed open, and how we were able to felicitate that, and the use of...
Amy Juravich Technology in the courts is. Yeah, you're known for a lot of technological advances in the court. I mean, in your court, a lot things happen. Well, not only.
Maureen O’Connor Well, not only the court here, the Supreme Court, but we started this initiative that at the end of the fiscal year, there was some money left over, okay? And normally what you do is you give it back to the general revenue fund. All right, well, keep in mind that the court's budget is like one-tenth or two-tenths of one percent of the state budget. That tells you how minimal. So there was a couple million dollars left over at the end of the year. And so I consistently granted that money for technology to the local courts. And it really helped the local court because they don't have that kind of money from their cities or their counties. And when it was all said and done, I think that it was close to $40 million over the years that was granted. You know, I did not decide who got them. I had a panel of folks do the screening and looked at the projects they wanted. They were all, you know meritorious, and they received the money and they were able to up their game, you, know, and then when COVID came around they had the technology. So many of the courts had the technology that they needed.
Amy Juravich Yes. They could do a Zoom hearing and that kind of thing, yes, rather than having to buy all the laptops and the routers from the scratch, yeah. Which they couldn't afford. To circle back to redistricting for a moment, are you still following it? I mean, I know that you said that right after retiring you took one week off and then you were back in the redistricting issue. Did you follow it this past time? Have you been keeping track of things? Yes.
Maureen O’Connor I have, and so have other people.
Amy Juravich So what do you think of the latest map? The Ohio Redistricting Commission is made up of seven elected officials. They unanimously passed a congressional map last October. It increased the Republican advantage, 12 of the 15 districts, that's up from 10. Democrats on the commission voted to adopt the map saying, quote, they were in an impossible situation. This was the best map that they were gonna get. So what did you think about that process?
Maureen O’Connor Unfortunately, that attitude of, well, this is the best map we're going to get so I'm going to vote for it, I don't agree with that. They could have made their statement that this is unconstitutional and the map would have passed anyway, but you'd be on record as being consistent, you know, but that's water under the bridge at this point. I know there is an initiative, there's a lot of people that are talking about, what are we gonna do in 2027? It depends on what happens in 2026, okay? And I think there's lot of interest in the 26 election here in Ohio. I mean, you know, it's gonna be an election for a governor and all the statewide office holders. And legislature and Congress. And it's... It's an election that everybody needs to pay attention to.
Amy Juravich When you think of gerrymandering, what do you think of the connection between gerrymandering and voter turnout? I mean, what do think happens to a voter whenever they hear about these maps and the lines and who's representing them has changed three times in the past six years?
Maureen O’Connor Well, we don't have great voter turnout, do we, in this state? And midterm elections are dismal. And there's a drop off for elections for judges, which is another problem. But think about it, the vast majority of Ohioans are independents, okay? They're not registered Democrat or registered Republican. And those people have no representation in deciding who they can vote for. In the general election because they don't participate in the primaries. So they feel, you know, they feel distanced, that they are irrelevant. And I've heard that so often from people about our election system. And you know my response to it is, well that's the system we have right now and you need to vote and vote for people that will change the system to make it so that the voice of the independents in the state are meaningful and considered. But I understand the thought process that it doesn't matter who I vote for. And they look at the politicians and they say, mistakenly, they're all the same. And they just don't see anything done that's going to benefit them. In fact, you know, in our current climate. They see that in Washington and they see that certainly here in Ohio.
Amy Juravich You mentioned that people, there's a drop-off in voting, so they'll vote for certain races, and then when they get to the judges' races, they just skip it, don't even vote at all. Was the intention with adding that R and D maybe to help people with voting for judges, or do you think that people just don't understand how to vote for a judge?
Maureen O’Connor They can get information about the candidate. We had a program at the court that was judicialvotescount.org and it was a website and you could go, you could to your county and you can see who was running for judge and you couldn't read their answers to their questions and then they would supplement those answers with whatever's happening along the way if they got this endorsement or that sort of thing. So you could stay abreast of it. It moved from the Supreme Court over to the Bar Association to run, and there were dollars from the legislature to support this program. And now I understand they're taking a break from judicialbosecount.org, so I don't think that that's available for judicial education about judges right now. I think that's a disservice, I really do, because people used it, and I know that. You know, people have told me, what a great. Thing it was for them, and it was. So people, you know, they have to work to find out about judges. Obviously, in this day and age, you can Google anybody, anything, whether you're getting the right information. It's important to maybe look at how local papers, and I mean, like community papers, you know. They pay attention to these kind of races, and they can be a source of information as well. You know, I invite people to just go to a, you know, judicial presentations about, you know, the candidates. Go to a candidates' night, ask questions, you know, be proactive. You'll find it's interesting.
Amy Juravich And everybody should do it. And before we take a break, I wanted to get your opinion on the current race. There is one Democrat in a statewide office, Jennifer Bruner, she's Supreme Court Justice. She's up for election. And there is a whole slew of Republicans. The primary has, I can't remember now if it's five or six, running against each other. So that primary is a competitive primary. What do you make of that race with having, you know, one Democrat and statewide office elected right now. Up for re-election and that slew of Republicans trying to- Well, it'll, it, the...
Maureen O’Connor Republican slew will reduce to one candidate, and that one candidate then will have the party and the powers that be coalesce and promote whoever that is. And as I said, as you said, Jennifer Bruner is running for re-election. She's been Secretary of the State. She has been on the court. She is, in my mind, a true public servant. But, again, she has the D. And, yes, it was intentional by the legislature. In 2020, there was some losses in the judiciary, and certain members of the legislature were horrified that their candidate lost in areas they shouldn't have lost. Well, they did that in their minds because those people didn't realize that they were Republicans. So, how are we going to fix that? We're going to put the designation. So people will know who the Republicans are and this won't happen again. And quite frankly, it's been successful. I think it's, yeah, I commented on it earlier. I think its so wrong to try and pin party labels on judges. I don't even like it when an article is written and they refer to, you know, refer to me for example the Republican chief justice, that's laziness on the part of the media to do that kind of a shorthand because it means absolutely nothing. Or in the federal court, or federal system, they'll say what president appointed that federal judge. Again, same shorthan they're trying to use and that's that's lasiness and I think it does a disservice to the public.
Amy Juravich Um, since being out of office, have you endorsed in any races? I mean, or would you, would you endorse someone in this, um, uh, Supreme court race that I just mentioned?
Maureen O’Connor Involved in that. I've got so many organizations or efforts, initiatives that I'm involved with to help educate the people about the judiciary, educate people about our democracy. Our attention to civics in our schools is dismal and that is part of the reason why people feel lost when it comes to exercising their right to vote, their right to protect their citizens. There's a national, the Task Force for American Democracy, I'm involved in that, Ohioans for the Rule of Law, that's another effort that just started. That is going to be, well, it is an institution that will coordinate and organize events. So, and those events are directed at making public aware. You know, putting lawyers in schools to explain to kids about the, you know working with the government, their rights, you what it means to vote, the history. You know, this is getting momentum. I guess that's the message I'm delivering is that there is momentum there in this environment, in this state and in this country. Because of what leadership is doing.
Amy Juravich This is All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. We're going to continue our conversation with Maureen O'Connor, former Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court. All Sighs continues in just a moment on 89 7 NPR news. You're listening to All Sides. I'm your host, Amy Juravich. We're talking this hour with former Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O'Connor. She's a member of a new initiative from Keep Our Republic called the Alliance of Former Chief Justices. Thank you again for being with us today. Maureen O’Connor Thank you. Amy Juravich So in a 2024 interview with the state court report, you talked about being a part of a six-person panel selected to vet candidates for a constitutional court in Ukraine. So you traveled to that country several times that year. Can you tell us about your involvement with that work and how did you get involved there and wanting to work with this war-torn country?
Maureen O’Connor It's interesting and it is something I'm still involved with. I made a six-year commitment in November of 2023 and I've been to Ukraine, I don't know how many times, I can't remember whether it's eight or nine, you know, since then. It was set up as a very much pro-democracy reform. Task Force.
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine is, as you'd imagine, is the most important court there, but it was the least respected because of corruption. And so Ukraine wanted and still wants to be part of the EU. They want to be a part of other organizations. And the EU said, you know, groups... Democracy groups. Before we consider this, you have to do something about your court system, okay, from top to bottom.
So one of the groups that they formed was the one I'm involved with. It's called the Advisory Group of Experts, which is a kind of highfalutin title, but there's six members who are selected. There's three Ukrainian members, and there is a woman from Poland who was formerly Prime Minister of Poland, and there's a gentleman from Slovakia.
Who is active in the ministerial roles in his government and he's also active in EU activities. So EU said, you know, here's what we do. You get this screening group and we each have a deputy member. My deputy is a retired federal appellate judge from the District of Columbia. So we get together. And we learn everything there is about the candidates that wanna be members of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
We have a group of lawyers and young researchers that find out all this information from government sources and then devise questions and then the candidates answer the questions and so we're well-versed on the backgrounds of these candidates. And the first goal is to make sure that they have. High moral quality, high moral integrity. That's what the vetting process is.
Unfortunately, too often their lifestyle exceeds their income and their rationale for the discrepancy is not always as convincing as they would like it to be. So you have doubts. We have doubts and they don't make it. To the next round, which would be take the written exam. So many do not make it there, because we do our job. And the beautiful part of this is that it's live streamed while we're interviewing the candidates. So the public gets to see what's going on. And the law students in the law schools there get to do it. At one point after we were interviewing for the day.
I went and spoke to several law schools and they wanted to talk about it and they were really interested in what we were doing and how, you know, it's all for the direction of reform. Wow. And they were all supportive of that. So I really have confidence in the younger generation of the country. You have to understand that Ukraine was a Soviet, part of the Soviet Union, therefore had the Russian mentality. Of government, which is corrupt, just corruption upon corruption. In the post-Soviet era, so many of the countries that broke free, like Ukraine, in 1991, retained the culture, and it's even now, and that's what you have to deal with.
Amy Juravich I feel like we could spend a whole hour talking about you weeding out corruption in Ukraine. This is All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. We're talking with former Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O'Connor. Before we run out of time, we mentioned this briefly earlier. Your portrait as Chief Justice was moved from a prominent spot in the Grand Concourse to the education center in the building's basement. In April 2025, a new. Exhibit was opened. It was going to your portraits a part of the women in law exhibit in the basement I was just wondering if you've seen the women-in-law exhibit. No, I have not So your portrait was in the Grand Concourse You were the only woman represented there at the time. I believe is that still correct? It is true Do you know if there's any women portraits in prominent spots? No, there's
Maureen O’Connor not. And that was the reason that I wanted that portrait in the Grand Concourse. That's where school kids come. That is where the public comes through there. The only people they see are the faces of deceased white men, going back to the 1800s, some slave owners, that sort of thing. I just felt that we needed to send a message, not just to young women, not just to girls in the grade schools that are coming, but to the boys, too. That, hey, this is a job that a woman did. She was on the court for 20 years. In 12 of those, she was the chief justice. And if she can do it, maybe I can do, too, and just enhance the respect for women in the law. And I'm not in favor of a special, you know, we're gonna put these women in the law in a corner and here's a little exhibit about it. Put it throughout the court where people see it, you know and people say, well it's down in the basement, you know in the education center. Yeah, that's not where people go every day, you know they come in there. You know, it made me sad that that happened. I heard from a lot of the employees that they were saddened because they loved walking by the portrait every day and it was like I was still there.
Amy Juravich Say hi to you
Maureen O’Connor Yes. Yeah. And it's a smiling portrait. I don't know if you've ever seen it, but it's really, I'm smiling. I'm standing up. I am smiling. I'm right at the edge of the bench in the courtroom. It's a really and the artist did a beautiful job. And I'm not just saying, you know, because it's me because I'm not vain, but for the quality of work, it is.
Amy Juravich Absolutely gorgeous. Well, and you accomplished a lot of firsts. You know, before you were on the Ohio Supreme Court, you were the first woman to serve as Lieutenant Governor. No, I was second. Second woman. Second. I'm sorry. Okay, okay. Second woman to service lieutenant governor. Nancy.
Maureen O’Connor Yeah, Nancy Hollister was George Bornovich's lieutenant governor, and then when he left to go to the Senate, you know, there was a gap and she became the interim governor.
Amy Juravich Oh, right. Yes. For that 11 days. Yes, yes. OK, yes, we'll give Nancy Hollister her due. I don't want to take anything away from Nancy. We're not taking anything away from Nancy, but in the two minutes we have left, we have a woman running for governor right now, Dr. Amy Acton. So if elected, she would be the first woman governor in that position. So party affiliation aside, what do you think of the prospects of a female governor in Ohio? I think they're good.
Maureen O’Connor I think that people need, this is an election for governor, where the candidates could not be more different than one another, which is unusual. Usually we've got two white men that are running and they're, tell me the difference. But here you have a contrast. You know, I know Amy. I've worked with her and, you know, as she says... She is a public servant her whole life. She's a doctor her whole life. That's what she's dedicated her life to public service. And I think people respect that. I think that people respect in a candidate. What have you done? Not what have you been done for me lately, it's what have done in your career and what will you do. And that's what people have to ask that of any candidate for any position and get engaged. Whole process. I would hope your listeners would just appreciate that and really get involved in especially in our gubernatorial.
Amy Juravich Well, I want to thank you so much for your time today. I feel like we could have spent two hours, three hours talking about all of the things you're involved in. I know you're very busy. I'll come back. So come back and tell me more about the Ohio rule of law part two. I want know more about that. So we've been talking with former Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O'Connor. Thank you so for your today. My pleasure. And this is All Sides on 89.7 NPR News. I'm Amy Juravich.