By Rev. Donald L. Perryman, Ph.D.
The Truth Contributor
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” — Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 1.2
Who wants a judge who collects political favors deciding their fate?
Who wants a judge who campaigned for the prosecutor seeking a conviction to be the one weighing that request? Or, a judge who endorsed the sheriff and traded endorsements like currency to be the one determining whether law enforcement violated your rights?
Nobody. And yet that is precisely what the Ohio Supreme Court just made possible.
In a 5-1 ruling, five Republican justices eliminated a decades-old ban on judges making partisan political endorsements on April 2— making Ohio the only state in the nation to permit them.
Moreover, the ruling was based on a finding that neither party to a dispute challenged, on a question no one asked them to answer, without briefs, without public input, and over a dissenting colleague’s explicit objection. Then they called it a First Amendment victory— while demolishing the firewall between politics and the bench.
Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly put it in terms that should stop every Ohioan cold: “In this case, the court acted as petitioner, decider, and potential beneficiary.”
In any other context, we would have a simpler name for what the justices just did to every citizen who will ever need a fair court in this state — they “played in our face.” Brazenly. Without apology.
The most underexamined consequence of this ruling is what it does to the pipeline of future judges — and ultimately to the person who will one day need a fair court and may not get one.
Attorneys drawn to judicial work typically value judicial independence, legal qualifications and reasoning skills. Not those who prioritize working a room or measure success by political alliances built and favors traded. So, I expect the ruling to make endorsement networks the new currency in judicial races, which could discourage good judicial candidates from running altogether.
“No disagreement there,” a sitting Ohio judge acknowledged to me without hesitation. “It’s certainly a bad ruling for the independence of the judiciary, and it will make judicial races more partisan.”
The jurist added that a similar problem exists today with campaign contributions and attorneys contributing to judges’ campaigns. “Judges have to do their best to set that aside in their rulings and keep them impartial,” while emphasizing that recusal and the Ohio code of judicial conduct provide additional guardrails.
Yet the judge agreed that respected lawyers could be deterred by the prospect of having to fully immerse themselves in partisan endorsement politics just to be competitive in judiciary races and that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision could accelerate the transformation of judicial races into fully transactional political campaigns, where endorsement trading is expected.
Even worse, is that every step deeper into partisan machinery pulls the courtroom further from the place it is supposed to be, where facts matter more than friendships and the law answers to no one’s political debts.
People have largely stopped believing Congress works for them. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ethics scandals have destroyed whatever credibility it had left. State courts were the last institution where most people still gave the benefit of the doubt, assuming the person behind the bench was at least trying to be fair. Ohio just made it harder to hold that assumption.
Prior to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision, you could be confident that the judge across from you was there because they knew the law, not because they knew the right people. We mostly believed judicial decisions had something to do with justice, not with who endorsed whom in the last election. We were confident that the robe meant something beyond the politics of the person wearing it.
The April 2, 2026, ruling loosens all of that. “It is bad,” my judicial source admitted. “It may not be incorrect. But it is probably bad for the confidence in the judiciary.”
Clearly, the prosecutors, sheriffs, careless or unscrupulous business owners, and party officials know exactly what they are doing.
The person sitting across from them in court — who had no part in that arrangement — deserves a judge who got there on merit.
What they may get instead is a judge who already owes someone a favor.
Contact Rev. Donald Perryman, PhD, at drdlperryman@centerofhopebaptist.org