Judge4Yourself, the coalition of Cleveland-area legal groups whose stated mission is to help voters elect good judicial candidates, is trying to make a comeback after being spurned by contenders from both parties.
The coalition sells its work as a way to “end the guessing game” in Cuyahoga County judicial elections. Those races aren’t often top of mind for voters, even though judges hold broad power over the lives, liberty and property of criminal defendants and civil litigants.
Over the last few years, many Democratic and Republican candidates opted not to sit for interviews with the city’s bar associations, which use the face-to-face meetings to rank judicial hopefuls on the website Judge4Yourself.
Democrats said the process was opaque and that Black candidates received lower scores. The Republican Party, which is outnumbered in the Cuyahoga County electorate, complained about the anti-GOP social media posts of one of the coalition’s then-co-chairs.
With so many candidates skipping interviews, Judge4Yourself became ineffective as a source of information for voters.
Now Judge4Yourself has reworked its ranking process and is trying to bring candidates back to the table. The coalition’s supporters say the new evaluations are meant to be more transparent and include more perspectives.
Khalida Sims Jackson, who chairs the Judicial Candidates Ratings Coalition, said that getting people to return to Judge4Yourself has “been a little bit of a mixed bag.”
“I think we have to accept the fact that there’s been a lot of turmoil,” she said. “That just has to automatically be put on the table and acknowledge that and how we plan on moving forward differently.”
Judge4Yourself plans to release rankings for the May primary later this month. It remains to be seen whether general election candidates will participate.
This isn’t the first time Judge4Yourself has revamped its rankings. The coalition made updates in 2019 following criticism from pastors in 2018.
No more ‘refused’ label for candidates who avoid interviews
One of the biggest changes is that Judge4Yourself will no longer hit candidates who skip interviews with a ranking of “Refused to Participate.” Now all candidates will receive a score ranging from “Not Recommended” to “Excellent.”
“Candidates that don’t want to appear don’t have to; there’s no hook there,” said Chris Schmitt, the CEO of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. “But at the end of the day, our responsibility is to the public and not to the candidates.”
Other changes include:
- Judge4Yourself will also survey the membership of the bar associations for candidate rankings, rather than leaving that task to the lawyers who conduct the interviews.
- Candidates will know ahead of time which lawyers will interview them. They’ll be able to object to the presence of people they feel have a conflict of interests.
- A research committee will prepare a file on each candidate, which the candidate will be able to see before the interview.
Candidates can face tough questions in their interviews, for instance, about lacking courtroom experience, Jackson said. But they ought to face difficult questions given the power that comes with sitting on the bench, she said.
“Being a judge, you have an immense responsibility and a lot of control,” she said. “And that is not something that you should just get because you are running for judge. You know what I mean? That’s something that’s earned.”
Ultimately, Judge4Yourself’s rankings represent the opinions of Cleveland-area lawyers — not, say, of criminal defendants or the parties in civil lawsuits.
Jackson said she wasn’t opposed to including more non-lawyer voices in the Judge4Yourself process. But attorneys bring a valuable perspective as the people who see up close how different judges do their jobs, she said.
Judge4Yourself compiles ratings from several bar associations: the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association; the Norman S. Minor Bar Association, which represents Black attorneys; the Asian American Bar Association of Ohio; the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Cuyahoga Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
Democrats ‘wary’ of Judge4Yourself, Republicans want more information
Cuyahoga County Democratic and Republican leaders aren’t ready to commit that their candidates will play ball again with Judge4Yourself. The parties can act as competing information sources in judicial races, promoting endorsed candidates who may or may not have good bar association ratings.
David Brock, the county Democratic Party chair, supported the decision by his party’s Common Pleas Court candidates not to participate in Judge4Yourself interviews in 2024. They didn’t like the “clubbiness” of a process that “wasn’t altogether transparent,” he said in an interview this week.
Brock met with Judge4Yourself representatives a few weeks ago, he said. The group’s goals are “noble,” he said — but that didn’t mean the party was all in.
“We’re still tentative, still wary, if you will,” he said. “But their heart’s in the right place and they want to, I think, accomplish something positive out of this.”
The county Democratic Party is now creating its own judicial candidate evaluation as part of its endorsement process, he said.
County Republican Party Chair Lisa Stickan said that she didn’t want to commit her party’s candidates to Judge4Yourself interviews on their behalf. She said she didn’t know much about Judge4Yourself’s changes yet and wanted to hear more from the group about them.
“I would like to understand these changes, have a dialogue on them and definitely I will follow up with them on it,” she said.
Two Democratic candidates who are competing for their party’s nod for a judicial seat in the May primary — incumbent Judge William Vodrey and challenger James Sean Gallagher — both took part in interviews with Judge4Yourself. Neither raised complaints about the new process in brief interviews with Signal Cleveland.
Like ‘teeth without a retainer’
One political consultant who raised complaints about racial bias in judicial rankings has not come back on board with Judge4Yourself.
“I’m not excited,” said Jerry Primm, who has advised local judicial campaigns. “I think that, for lack of a better way to put it, I liked the last two years without them.”
Primm helped put together an alternative rating system with the Cleveland branch of the NAACP and other organizations several years ago. He shared the results of a study of Judge4Yourself’s ratings from 2016-2018, which found that, on average, African American candidates received lower scores than white ones.
He soured on Judge4Yourself after the organization gave “Not Recommended” scores to several Democrats who didn’t sit for interviews in 2023. It was a punitive move, he said — one that Judge4Yourself took even after its 2019 changes.
Primm said he would advise candidates not to participate. He compared Judge4Yourself to teeth that shift after braces are removed. In other words, without outside pressure, the group will backslide.
“Historically when the pressure is no longer there, they do that,” Primm said. “They are like those teeth without a retainer.”
Jackson, the judicial ratings coalition chair, said she didn’t want to overlook candidates who had bad experiences with Judge4Yourself. The response to that criticism should be a more transparent process — and more candidates of color running for the bench, she said.
“The way that we address it is making sure you know who’s in the room, having that pool be as open as possible,” she said, “but having, obviously, more candidates, especially those that represent the community, participate in this process.”
