Ohio House committee tweaks Adams County judge bill after pushback

By Nick Evans
Ohio Capital Journal

Ohio House lawmakers are working on a plan to give Adams County an additional judge — it’s one of just five counties in the state with a single common pleas judge. According to the plan’s sponsors, Reps. Jean Schmidt, R-Loveland, and Justin Pizzulli, R-Scioto County, local leaders are on board.

But as The People’s Defender reported earlier this month, the county’s current judge, Brett Spencer, isn’t.

The three-term Democratic judge narrowly won reelection in 2022. Now, the Republican controlled commission is among the local authorities calling urging state lawmakers to establish a new Adams County judgeship.

As it happens, one of those county commissioners, Republican Barbara Moore, was Judge Spencer’s opponent in that 2022 reelection bid.

The sponsors’ testimony

Late last month, Pizzulli and Schmidt introduced their bill in the House Civil Justice committee. Pizzulli argued Adams County needs an additional judge to handle increasing juvenile court caseloads.

“Adams County leads the state in the number of children subjected to court involvement on a per child capita basis,” he insisted. “Abuse and neglect cases have tripled in just three years alone.”

“I commend the unwavering dedication of our core staff who have shown immense resilience despite limited resources,” he added, “However, our community deserves more.”

To that end, their bill would split judicial responsibilities. The sitting judge would maintain jurisdiction over civil, criminal and domestic relations cases, while a new judge elected in 2024 would handle juvenile and probate cases.

Asked by committee members whether the current judge supported the plan, Pizzulli sidestepped.

“I would say the majority of the community supports the bill,” he said. “I think it’s important. I don’t want to necessarily speak for other people.”

And he argued that the idea of adding a judge has been around for a long time — a committee formed in 2010 to consider the addition. And although it was “initially dissolved in 2011,” as Pizzulli tells it, local leaders have been working on the idea ever since. The county commission, he explained “have diligently prepared for this vital expansion over the last several years.”

Schmidt chimed in that she was hearing about the idea when she represented the area in Congress.

“Ten years ago, when I represented them from a different position, they were asking for another judge,” she said. “Ten years later, they’re saying I no longer want it, I need it.”

Committee chairman, Rep. Brett Hudson Hillyer, R-Ulrichsville, asked the sponsors to provide letters from the county commission, the local bar association and caseload data from the Ohio Supreme Court.

Supporters weigh in

A few weeks later, County Commissioner Teresa Diane Ward and Danny Bubp, a retired probate and juvenile judge from neighboring Brown County, spoke in favor of the proposal.

The sponsors also provided the caseload data Hillyer requested. And while Pizzulli’s point about Adams County leading the state in children per capita with court involvement, the report didn’t remotely bear out his claims of abuse and neglect cases tripling in three years.

In the last ten years, according to court records, abuse neglect or dependency cases have not tripled over any time span. Those cases fell to their lowest point in 2014 with 77 cases; their peak was seven years later in 2021, with 198. They’ve since declined to 155 cases in 2022.

Commissioner Ward told the committee, “Every person from an infant to the elderly has a legal right to be represented in court without undue delays. Backlogged dockets and Adams County have in essence hindered their rights.”

“One judge simply cannot efficiently provide these services and delayed hearings are simply unacceptable,” she added.

Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, pushed back, noting that the picture she painted doesn’t line up with the data.

“This report says the courts total number of cases has remained largely unchanged since 2013 through 2022,” he cited. “Criminal and civil cases have declined substantially. Every one of these charts seems to suggest that caseload is actually overall going down compared to a decade ago.”

Ward dodged, stating she hadn’t seen the report. Like the sponsors, she pointed to the 2010 committee’s desire for an additional judge, and anecdotally cited local attorneys complaining about delayed cases.

Bubp also claimed ignorance when pressed about the caseload data, and skirted a question about the current judge’s opinion of the bill.

“Judge Spencer was on the (2010) committee and that committee determined that that we needed another judge,” Bubp said. “I have not spoken with him since I’ve come back from Florida this year, I’ve not talked to him about it. I don’t know is the answer to that question. But I would assume that he would be in favor of it simply because of the workload.”

Judge Spencer responds

Two weeks ago, Judge Spencer himself showed up in committee. Notwithstanding Bubp’s speculation, it turns out Spencer is not in favor of the bill. And he criticized the way Bubp framed his answer, arguing not only have they not spoken this year, they haven’t spoken since 2004.

Still, Spencer offered a nuanced critique of the bill, arguing, “I’m not certain if I’m truly an opponent.”

To him, the question comes down to intent. If the sponsors want to add another judge to share his responsibilities and increase efficiency, Spencer has little complaint.

“If it is the intent, and then the effect, of the sponsored legislation, to retroactively change the 2022 ballot, modify the will of the voters of Adams County, and strip me of jurisdiction of the juvenile division, where my greatest passion lies, and the ability to change lives for the better of those less fortunate children exist, then my opposition has no boundaries,” Spencer said.

Spencer argued voters elected him in 2022 to preside over the entire scope of cases in the county. Lawmakers intervening a year later to peel off part of that jurisdiction — just one year into a six-year term — would undermine the voters’ will, he said.

“In essence,” Spencer argued, “I challenge if my elected jurisdictions can be abolished retroactively.”

The judge was careful about how he expressed his position, noting a handful of times that the judicial code of conduct places limits on his comments. Still, pressed on why so many other local officials support the idea, he pointed back to that 2022 election. “Each and every one” of those proponents, he said, “were very vocal advocates” for his opponent.

“This is a mulligan, if you would,” he said. “That’s all right on the golf course on the first tee, but not in elections when voters have cast their vote.”

Getting to yes?

Spencer insisted his opposition focused squarely on the threat of lawmakers rescinding his jurisdiction over juvenile cases. But Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, argued “I’m not sure I read the bill that way.”

“I was of the opinion,” he went on, “that we’re just adding a judge for probate and juvenile. And if you have jurisdiction for six years on probate and juvenile, there would be two of you.”

Judge Spencer agreed in committee that he’d have no opposition to that. But he noted, the legislative analysis and fiscal note both assumed otherwise — the bill as drafted would split judicial authority, handing sole jurisdiction for juvenile and probate to the new judge.

Sensing an opening, Hillyer cut in. The committee would come up with an amendment to clarify that Spencer’s jurisdiction would remain intact.

In brief hearing Tuesday, Hillyer introduced that amendment. The provisions would maintain the 2024 election of an additional judge but put off the division of authorities until February 9, 2029 — the beginning of the next term for Judge Spencer’s seat on the bench.

In an emailed statement, Judge Spencer said he shared his position on the amendment with Hillyer but didn’t say exactly say what that position was. He went on to add “I trust our Legislators will thoroughly evaluate the merits of HB 283 as originally introduced, as well as Chairman Hillyer’s amendment.”

After adding the amendment to the bill, Hillyer said he wanted to let it “digest” and then consider a vote at an upcoming meeting.