Supreme Court of Ohio Candidate Profile

This November, we must vote for our values and fight for our rights. Our core freedoms are at stake, including the right to make private healthcare decisions and vote in districts that are not partisan gerrymandered. State Supreme Court races matter more than ever before, and the ACLU of Ohio is elevating the most important issues that are on the line this election season.

This resource outlines the candidates’ positions on abortion access, redistricting, bail reform, and criminal sentencing reform.

On July 26, the ACLU of Ohio sent a candidate survey to all six candidates, and allowed three weeks for submissions; however, after repeated attempts, only received responses from Justice Brunner, Judge Jamison, and Judge Zayas. Candidate responses are linked in the below, interactive Candidate Profile and toward the bottom of this page.

More infomation on the candidates


2022 Ohio Supreme Court Race: Candidates Endorsements

The word 'Endorsements' in navy font in an orange rectangle on a textured light blue background

Jennifer Brunner

(View the offical campaign website endorsements)


  • AFSCME Ohio Council 8

  • Amalgamated Transit Union (Ohio)

  • American Youth for Climate Action

  • Baptist Ministerial Alliance of Columbus & Vicinity

  • Boilermaker's Union Local 744 (Cleveland)

  • Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers of Local 5 Ohio (Cuyahoga, Lorain and Medina counties)

  • Carpenters Local Union No. 171

  • Cleveland Building & Construction Trades Council


  • Columbus Fire Fighters, Local 67 (International Association of Firefighters)

  • CWA Local 4502

  • Dayton Building and Construction Trades Council

  • International Chemical Workers Union Council (ICWUC)

  • Iron Workers Local 17 of Northeast Ohio

  • Iron Workers Local 550 (Canton)

  • Iron Workers Local Union No. 550, Canton

  • Laborers Local Union No. 894, Akron

  • Laborers’ International Union of North America – Local 534

  • Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local No. 860, Cleveland

  • Laborers’ International Union of North America, Lorain County Local 758

  • Mahoning-Trumbull AFL-CIO Labor Council

  • OAPSE/AFSCME, Ohio Association of Public School Employees

  • Ohio AFL-CIO

  • Ohio Association of Professional Fire Fighters

  • Ohio Education Association (OEA Fund)  

  • Ohio Environmental Council (Action Fund)

  • Ohio Farmers Union

  • Ohio State Conference of the I.B.E.W.

  • Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio

  • Portage County Young Democrats

  • Region 2B, United Auto Workers, Ohio State UAW Community Action Program Council (representing an additional 96,000 members)

  • Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU)

  • Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 33

  • Teamsters Local 413

  • The Matriots Pac

  • United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Locals 17A, 75, 880, and 1059

  • United Mine Workers of America Ohio COMPAC

  • United Steelworkers (USW) District 1

Recommended by Joint Memberships:

  • Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU)
  • Philip Randolph Institute (APRI)
  • The Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW)


Pat DeWine

(View the offical campaign website endorsements)

  • Buckeye Firearms Association (PAC)
  • Cleveland Building & Construction Trades Council
  • NFIB Ohio PAC
  • Ohio Business Roundtable PAC
  • Ohio Chamber of Commerce PAC
  • Ohio Farm Bureau Federation Agriculture for Good Government PAC
  • Ohio Manufacturers’ Association PAC
  • Ohio Right to Life


Pat Fischer

  • NFIB Ohio PAC
  • Ohio Business Roundtable PAC
  • Ohio Chamber of Commerce PAC
  • Ohio Farm Bureau Federation Agriculture for Good Government PAC
  • Ohio Manufacturers’ Association PAC
  • Ohio Right to Life


Terri Jamison

(View the offical campaign website endorsements)

  • AFL-CIO, Ohio
  • Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU)
  • Association of Professional Fire Fighters (OAPFF), Ohio
  • Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET)
  • Cincinnati Women's Political Caucus
  • Columbus Fire Fighters, Local 67, International Assoc. of Fire Fighters
  • Communication Workers of America (CWA), District 4
  • Communication Workers of America (CWA), Local 4502
  • Daily Kos
  • Elect Black Women PAC
  • National Organization for Women, Ohio (Ohio NOW)
  • OAPSE-AFSCME (Ohio Association of Public School Employees and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees)
  • Ohio Education Association (OEA)
  • Ohio Environmental Action Fund
  • Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT)
  • Our Revolution, Ohio
  • Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio
  • Service Workers International Union (SEIU) 1199
  • Sheet Metal Workers International Assoc. Local 24
  • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist
  • The Collective PAC
  • The Matriots
  • The ReSisters of Central Ohio
  • United Auto Workers (UAW)
  • United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Ohio
  • United Mine Workers of America (UMWA)


Sharon Kennedy

(View the offical campaign website endorsements)

  • Boilermakers Local #105

  • Buckeye Firearms Association

  • Cement Masons & Plasterers Local #886

  • Cincinnati Right to Life PAC

  • Conservative Republican Leadership Committee

  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local #688

  • Iron Workers Local #44 IPAL

  • NFIB Ohio PAC

  • Ohio Bail Agents Association

  • Ohio Business Roundtable PAC

  • Ohio Chamber of Commerce PAC

  • Ohio Farm Bureau Federation Agriculture for Good Governess PAC

  • Ohio Fraternal Order of Police

  • Ohio Manufacturers’ Association PAC

  • Ohio Right to Life

  • Ohio Value Voters

  • Right to Life Coalition of Ohio

  • Roofers Local Union #134

  • Toledo Police Command Officers’ Association (T.P.C.O.A.)

  • Tri-State Building and Construction Trades


Marilyn Zayas

  • Amalgamated Transit Union (Ohio)
  • Asbestos Workers Local 24
  • CWA
  • IBEW Local 212
  • Ohio AFL CIO
  • Ohio Education Association
  • Ohio Federation of Teachers
  • Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council
  • OUPAT DC 6
  • Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio
  • SEIU
  • Sheet Metal Workers Local Union #24
  • The Matriots
  • Tri-State Asian American Action Fund
  • UAW Region 2B
  • UFCW
  • United Mine Workers of America

Sources and Methodology

How, and from where, we gathered information

The word 'Sources' in navy font in an orange rectangle on a textured light blue background

Justice Brunner

Justice DeWine

Justice Fischer

Judge Jamison

Justice Kennedy

Judge Zayas

Candidate Questionnaire

1. To what extent should Ohioans have a right to bodily autonomy when it comes to reproductive decisions?

Justice Brunner: Our rights under the law are not political footballs, subject to the whim of which political party is in power. Judges must remain impartial and stay grounded in the law to protect all of our rights. The judiciary must never become a political tool –courts must remain independent – not forcing ideology in the name of the law on any Ohioan.

Justice DeWine: Did not respond to the survey.

Justice Fischer: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Jamison: Did not answer the question.

Justice Kennedy: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Zayas: The U.S. Supreme Court recently determined in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the U.S. Constitution does not contain a right to an abortion, and the authority to regulate abortion is a matter left to each state to decide. Ultimately, the extent of these rights and civil liberties will be determined by Ohio courts and the interpretation of the Ohio Constitution.

As a candidate for the Ohio Supreme Court and a Court of Appeals Judge, I am governed by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. As this issue is likely to come before the Ohio Supreme Court, I should not express my express my agreement or disagreement with these legal issues to protect the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the court.

2. As a jurist, what is your role in protecting the right to vote?

Justice Brunner: Article 21 section 3. of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in Paris, France, in 1948, and known as the “Paris Principles” provides:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

While no such specific provision exists in the Ohio Constitution, a body of caselaw has developed that does protect the right to vote. The doctrine of stare decisis binds the court to continue to protect that right, based on due process and equal protection under both state and federal law.

Justice DeWine: Did not respond to the survey.

Justice Fischer: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Jamison: The court's role in protecting the right to vote and the importance of maintaining its Constitutionally granted status as an independent co-equal branch of government that serves as a check and balance on the executive and legislative branches is being demonstrated by the ongoing redistricting litigation. The Court has both the power and the obligation to order the members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission to abide by the provisions of Articles XI and XIX and to hold them accountable if they refuse to do so.

Justice Kennedy: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Zayas: The right to vote is one of our most sacred and fundamental rights. Voting is critical to ensure that our elected offcials are truly representative of our entire community. One way to preserve this right is to ensure that our voting districts are not drawn to favor or disfavor any political party, (also referred to as "political gerrymandering"), a directive Ohioans approved by amending Ohio's Constitution.

Recently and repeatedly, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that the redistricting maps created and adopted by the commission were invalid because the maps unconstitutionally favored one political party and did not reflect the statewide preferences of Ohio voters.

We are currently operating under maps that are in place temporarily. New maps are to be drawn and may continue to be litigated in the Ohio Supreme Court. Accordingly, I should not express my agreement or disagreement with these legal issues to protect the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the court and to ensure that I will be able to decide the issue if it comes before me.

3. Do you believe that DuBose v. McGuffey, which in part held that money bail could not be used for the purpose of public safety, was decided correctly? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Justice Brunner: Yes, because it is based on recently amended (2021) Criminal Rule 46, which does provide for safety as consideration on determining a person’s release from detention pending trial, but in determining the amount of cash bail or bond that is required for pretrial release, the factors to be considered do not include safety, but rather what the accused can afford and what will be required to ensure they return for hearings and trial.

I am dismayed by the state constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot on November 8, because it is a gross mischaracterization of the Dubose v. McGuffey decision released by the Ohio Supreme Court earlier this year that is based on bail reform adopted last year by the Ohio Supreme Court in its rules of superintendence in March of 2021. I voted for those rule changes. The goal of those rules is to eliminate what amounts to the phenomenon known as debtor prisons, where poor people charged with crimes stay in jail and rich people get out regardless of safety considerations, pending trial.

This year, in response to Dubose v. McGuffey, the Ohio legislature has placed a dangerous constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot to require public safety to be considered when bail is set and to remove any authority from the Ohio Supreme Court to adopt rules on bail. This would strip away the bail reform rules recently adopted.

Public safety is always considered when the question of bail arises. It is first considered to determine if a person is eligible for bail or if the person should be held without bail pending trial. It is considered separately from the amount of bail, with conditions for bail such as regular reporting, drug screening, stay away orders and ankle monitors. The amount of bail is a separate question that is based on what is necessary to ensure a person shows up for trial.

That way a person who cannot afford high bail for a drug possession crime but is employed and expected to show up for trial or who later is acquitted of the crime they were charged with has not experienced an extended period of time in jail before their trial, along with attendant problems, such as job or home loss or loss of custody of children.

There is real bail reform in legislation that is currently before the Ohio General Assembly in both the House and Senate that is supported by more than 70 organizations that range from conservative to liberal and business to nonprofit. I have been meeting with these various organizations that have been supporting people in poverty and who have been negatively and unfairly impacted by poor bail policies in Ohio for years. The ballot issue for bail reform is an ill-conceived and politically motivated enticement to get conservative voters to vote through scare tactics. If passed it will set back real reform efforts in Ohio for years and hurt many individuals in the process.

Justice DeWine: Did not respond to the survey.

Justice Fischer: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Jamison: Yes. Public safety is not the only consideration when deciding bail. You must review the factors of criminal history, history of appearing or failing to appear for court hearings, longevity in the community, employment status, the type of crime, i.e., is it a crime of violence, is the defendant on community control or parole at the time of the offense, just to name a few factors to consider. If you're concerned about the defendants return to court, you can add conditions such as GPS monitoring or pre-trial reporting with urine screens or counseling. The prosecutor can always request a hearing to revoke bond or change the bond to surety for the defendant to have a bondsman who is also concerned of their whereabouts. The court must be mindful that the purpose of bond is not to punish but to guarantee the defendant's return to court.

Justice Kennedy: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Zayas: In DuBose v. McGuffy, the Ohio Supreme Court was asked to interpret the language in Crim.R. 46, which governs the amount and conditions of bail. Relying on prior precedent and the language in Crim.R. 46, the majority of the Court determined that the rule requires trial courts to set a monetary bail amount related to ensuring a person’s appearance in court, the seriousness of the charged crime, and any past criminal record.

A court may impose numerous other conditions and restrictions of bail to address public safety concerns. For example, a court may order electronic monitoring or 24-hour lockdown to ensure public safety.

Under a separate statute, R.C. 2937.222(B), a court may also deny all forms of bail, including a monetary bond, when a person poses such a danger to the community that the person must be held without bail. Under those circumstances, the state must present evidence that the person poses a poses a substantial risk of physical harm to others or the community.

As these issues will continue to be litigated in the Ohio Supreme Court, I should not express my agreement or disagreement with these legal issues to protect the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the court and to ensure that I will be able to decide the issue when it comes before me.

4. What’s your proudest case decision and why?

Justice Brunner: From the Tenth District Court of Appeals:
Magda v. Ohio Elections Comm., 2016-Ohio-5043, 58 N.E.3d 1188 (10th Dist.)

PASSAGE FROM THE DECISION: “Since R.C. 3517.21(B)(1) is an excessive restriction on the freedom of speech guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, enforcement of the statute should be permanently enjoined. "Injunctive relief is warranted when a statute is unconstitutional, enforcement will infringe upon constitutional rights and cause irreparable harm, and there is no adequate remedy at law." United Auto Workers Local Union 1112 v. Philomena, 121 Ohio App.3d 760, 781, 700 N.E.2d 936 (10th Dist.1998), citing Olds v. Klotz, 131 Ohio St. 447, 3 N.E.2d 371 (1936), paragraph two of the syllabus. A finding that a constitutional right has been threatened or impaired mandates a finding of irreparable injury as well. Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 809 (6th Cir.2001), citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S. Ct. 2673, 49 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1976). Having sustained appellants' first and second assignments of error, we hold that the granting of an injunction against the enforcement of the statute is warranted.”

COMMENTARY ON THE DECISION: I practiced before the Ohio Elections Commission from 1988 through 2000 and again from 2011 through 2014. Over the years, its powers were diminished for constitutional reasons, especially considering that its findings and decisions could result in referral for criminal prosecution for political speech. It is a 7-member appointed body, and there is no requirement that its members be attorneys. Its members were half Democratic, half Republican and one independent of any party. Its decisions were often unpredictable, there was no funding for an investigator, and its processes were often used by political campaigns as political tactics. By this decision I authored, the statute allowing the commission to punish for campaign speech was declared unconstitutional and is no longer applicable in law.

From the Ohio Supreme Court:
State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-274, ¶¶ 1-2, 2022 Ohio LEXIS 214, 2022 WL 1-3, 320549

PASSAGE FROM THE DECISION: “Ohio juvenile law is organized around the tenet that children who are charged with acts that would be felonies if committed by adults must be recognized by courts as children when adjudicating and determining the consequences to be imposed on them if they are found to have committed those acts. In the statutory scheme for juvenile justice, "[i]nstead of 'defendants,' children are 'respondents' or simply 'juveniles'; instead of a trial, children receive 'hearings'; children are not found guilty, they are 'adjudicated delinquent'; and instead of sentencing, children's cases are terminated through 'disposition.'"State v. Hanning, 89 Ohio St. 3d 86, 89, 2000-Ohio-436, 728 N.E.2d 1059 (2000). Legislatures and courts, including this court, have recognized that the special interests involved in juvenile cases cannot be adequately addressed by the adult-criminal-justice system, but they have also recognized that juveniles accused of crimes must be afforded the same procedural-due-process protections as adult criminal defendants, see In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (establishing that "neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone"), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 106 S.Ct. 2988, 92 L.Ed.2d 296 (1986).

This court has also noted that "[j]uvenile law and criminal law are not synonymous," State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2016-Ohio-5504, 73 N.E.3d 448, ¶ 13, and that "the very purpose of the state juvenile code is 'to avoid treatment of youngsters as criminals and insulate them from the reputation and answerability of criminals,'" id. at ¶ 19, quoting In re Agler, 19 Ohio St.2d 70, 80, 249 N.E.2d 808 (1969). Stated another way, the juvenile-justice system must provide for accountability; yet it must also meet society's need to secure its future through its youth. Thus, the juvenile-justice system must hold juveniles accountable for their actions and, whenever possible, provide them with opportunities for learning and growth toward a better path. The juvenile court was created by statute, and consequently, its authority is determined by that which is conferred on it by the legislature. In re Z.R., 144 Ohio St. 3d 380, 2015-Ohio-3306, 44 N.E.3d 239, ¶ 14. Today, this court is tasked with determining the legal effect of a juvenile court's order transferring ("binding over") charges filed in juvenile court to the jurisdiction of the general division of the court of common pleas (‘adult court’).”

COMMENTARY ON THE DECISION: Because a juvenile court’s finding of probable cause as to any particular act charged is what triggers a possible transfer to adult court, when a juvenile court determines that there is no probable cause for an act charged, the adult court has no jurisdiction over that charge. In Smith, the juvenile court found no probable cause that the youth committed what would be a felony with a gun, but using discretionary bindover determined he should be tried in adult court. The common pleas court indicted on matters for which the juvenile court found no probable cause. “[B]indover of the child [is] not an open invitation for the adult court to treat the child as if his or her bindover to adult court is the child's first encounter with a tribunal for the acts named in the bindover order—there are limitations. Juvenile bindover does not open the door to prosecution in adult court for any charge the state might later seek in an indictment.” State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-274, P2, 2022 Ohio LEXIS 214, *4, State v. Azeen, 163.

Justice DeWine: Did not respond to the survey.

Justice Fischer: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Jamison: I'm proud of every decision as it brings closure or resolution to the case for each party. I don't believe any case is more important than another. If I am able to persuade my peers to reach a different conclusion that gives a better outcome for the entirety of the jurisdiction I serve, I believe that I have done my job.

Balfour v. Hayman, 2021-Ohio-3499, comes to mind where research showed that a quit claim deed could be used for a mortgage. The gentleman gave a quit claim deed to borrow money and the grantee attempted to evict him from the property. The Plaintiff got a judgment on the pleadings from the trial court, which Defendant appealed. I wrote the decision that remanded the case for further proceedings. The case showed the power of the court to bring equity in this case and give Appellant the ability to provide evidence rather than the court making a ruling solely on the pleadings.

Justice Kennedy: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Zayas: One of my proudest decisions was in a parental termination case, In re D.M., L.W., and L.M., 1st Dist. No. C-200043, 2020-Ohio-3273. Parental termination cases are where the state requests the court to permanently end the parents’ rights to raise their child. One of our most precious rights is the right to parent our children. Family bonds should only be severed when parents pose a substantial risk to a child that cannot be remedied.

In this case, a young mother appealed from the juvenile court's judgement that terminated her parental rights. Mother had three children before she turned 18. Initially, the state intervened after mother and her second child tested positive for marijuana at the child’s birth. At that time, the state had concerns that mother may have substance abuse issues and cognitive and mental health issues.

Ultimately, it was determined that mother had no cognitive issues. Concerns of substance abuse were alleviated when mother tested negative on all eight random urine screenings. The only identified mental health issue was a diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder, and mother had attended thirty-three sessions with her therapist.

The first time this case came to my court, I was assigned to author the case. The day that mother was to come to court and testify, her car broke down, and her back-up driver was a no show. The magistrate refused to continue the case and proceeded to terminate mother’s parenting rights absent her testimony. Mother objected, attended that hearing, and asked to testify. The Juvenile Court Judge adopted the magistrate's decision without allowing mother to testify. I wrote a unanimous opinion reversing the decision and remanding the case to the Juvenile Court to allow mother to testify.

The second time the case came on appeal to my court, I was again assigned to author the case. The record contained no evidence of abuse or neglect, even for mother’s eldest child, who was in her custody until after his first birthday, while her other two children were removed straight from the hospital. The trial court's determination hinged on a finding that mother had failed to complete the parenting component of the case plan by failing to attend parenting coaching classes to their completion. However, the case manager testified that mother had successfully completed the parenting class and was not required to participate in parenting coaching.

In a unanimous decision, we reversed that decision and allowed the family to be reunited.

5. What’s one state or federal Supreme Court case you disagree with and why?

Justice Brunner: State v. Azeen, 163 Ohio St. 3d 447, 464, 2021-Ohio-1735, P61, 170 N.E.3d 864, 878, 2021 Ohio LEXIS 987, *36-37.

PASSAGE FROM BRUNNER, J. DISSENT: “even if there is a question as to whether the evidence relied on by either the trial or appellate court was sufficient to support a finding that a plea agreement existed, we should affirm if we find the requisite evidence elsewhere in the record. See id.(trial court does not abuse its discretion in determining the actual loss suffered by defendant's actions for purposes of restitution, if ‘competent, credible evidence support[s] its determination’).”

COMMENTARY ON DECISION: This case concerns whether a criminal defendant may withdraw his plea and whether the record reflects there was a plea agreement. If the evidence in the record, not necessarily relied on by the trial court, supports that there was a plea agreement, the court’s majority found that it could not be considered and voted by majority to affirm denial of plea withdrawal. Dissent argues the evidence of a plea agreement should be considered, since authority to withdraw please must be freely given when the withdrawal request is made before sentencing.

Justice DeWine: Did not respond to the survey.

Justice Fischer: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Jamison: Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), the United States Supreme Court decided that a cheek swab of an arrestee's DNA is comparable to fingerprinting and therefore, a legal police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. There's no reason to gather DNA unless you're using it for investigative purposes.

Justice Kennedy: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Zayas: I disagreed with the Ohio Supreme Court's decision to reconsider two cases that it had already decided. In December 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court issued two decisions in two cases that were adverse to the state in criminal matters. In State v. Aalim, the court found the mandatory bindover of juveniles to adult court without an amenability hearing violated the due process rights of juveniles. In State v. Gonzales, the court held that the level of felony for possession of cocaine depended on the weight of the cocaine and not the fillers.

In November 2016, two new judges were elected to the Ohio Supreme Court, one was my opponent. The state filed motions for reconsideration knowing that two new judges had been elected. Motions for reconsideration should only be granted to correct an obvious error or an issue that the court did not consider. Both motions were granted by the new court, when as stated by Justice O'Neill, the "motion[s] for reconsideration [are] a transparent attempt to win [these cases], not based on the merits of its arguments, but based on the change in the makeup of this court following the 2016 election."

Reconsidering a case based on a change of the composition of the court undermines the integrity of the court and public confidence.

6. What else would you like voters to know about how you would decide cases?

Justice Brunner: Ohio is at a point in time that experienced and principled leadership of the Ohio Supreme Court is critical. The judiciary is an entire branch of government in Ohio, and it is the only branch of state government that can actually hold the other two branches accountable in quelling corruption perceived or otherwise, such as with issues involving the drawing of legislative lines in the state for fair districts. As Chief Justice, I would be the superintendent of all of the courts of this state under the Ohio Supreme Court's rules of superintendence. I am the only candidate in the race with the statewide administrative experience to do this job. I believe I am duty-bound to step up to serve, and I do so because of my love for my state and its people.

Justice DeWine: Did not respond to the survey.

Justice Fischer: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Jamison: I believe my judicial philosophy will provide the voters with valuable insight into the process I utilize to decide cases: I begin to interpret a regulation, statute, or constitutional provision by referring to the original intent or original meaning of the rule at the time it was created and look to what legislators intended at the time it was written. I will apply the law to the individual facts of the case and to our current society to ensure justice and equity for all people. I believe that Chief Justice Roberts said it best, "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules. They apply them." When there is no rule that fits the facts, I believe a judge has the authority to interpret the law and render a decision that will answer questions that are of great interest to the public.

Justice Kennedy: Did not respond to the survey.

Judge Zayas: My passion for law began as a teenager when I was accompanying my mom to family court and served as her ad hoc interpreter as she fought for custody over my youngest brother to protect him. From my perspective, the court disregarded the serious issues my mother raised. I could not understand why my mother’s pleas went unheard. At that time my mom, who was born in Puerto Rico, had a seventh-grade education, limited English language skills, and worked in a sewing factory. She had very few resources for legal representation. Through this experience, I realized the profound impact courts have on people’s lives.

I bring a unique perspective to the court, which comes from my 6 years of experience as an appellate judge, my 20 years of legal experience advocating for my clients, and my underprivileged background.

My judicial record shows that I faithfully apply the law fairly and impartially, understanding each decision affects people of all walks of life in communities as varied as Ohio’s 88 counties.

Confidence in our court system can only be achieved when all who enter a court have a fair chance, and are treated with dignity and respect, and decisions are made independent of outside influences and political pressure.

I am running for the Ohio Supreme Court because our state deserves a justice who has the courage to take on the important and challenging issues we are facing in Ohio, and who strives every day to maintain the integrity of our courts. I was awarded an “Excellent” rating from the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, an independent and nonpartisan organization.