Bill to add judge to Common Pleas Court sent to Ohio Governor

By Ryan Applegate

People’s Defender

The Ohio General Assembly’s recent advancement of Senate Bill 158, which incorporates the provisions of House Bill 283, has sparked a heated debate about judicial efficiency, financial responsibility, and the welfare of Adams County residents. At the heart of the controversy lies a proposal to add a second judge to the Adams County Common Pleas Court, a change that proponents argue is long overdue but opponents view as unnecessary and costly. The bill now awaits Governor Mike DeWine’s signature, leaving the future of the county’s judicial structure uncertain.

House Bill 283, spearheaded by State Representatives Justin Pizzulli (R-Scioto County) and Jean Schmidt (R-Loveland), seeks to create two distinct divisions within the Adams County Common Pleas Court. One division would handle civil, criminal, and domestic relations cases, while the other would focus exclusively on probate and juvenile cases. Proponents contend that this restructuring is essential to alleviate a growing backlog of cases, particularly those involving vulnerable children in need of care and protection.

“Our children are calling out for help, and it is our moral obligation to ensure their safety,” said Rep. Pizzulli. His co-sponsor, Rep. Schmidt, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that the legislation would provide critical support for Adams County families. The Adams County Board of County Commissioners and the Adams County Children Services Board have also expressed strong support for the bill, arguing that the addition of a judge would enhance court efficiency and improve outcomes for children and families.

Proponents point to historical context to bolster their case. A committee convened in 2010 to address judicial workloads in Adams County initially recommended adding a second judge due to high caseloads, particularly during the height of the opioid crisis. The committee disbanded in 2011 following a decline in cases.

Despite the support for HB 283, the proposal has met staunch opposition from some quarters, most notably Judge Brett Spencer, the judge currently serving the Adams County Common Pleas Court. Judge Spencer has publicly stated that his court’s monthly reports to the Ohio Supreme Court do not reflect a significant backlog that would necessitate the addition of a second judge.

Opponents of the bill have raised concerns about the financial implications of creating a new judgeship. Legislative estimates suggest that the local costs associated with the additional judge could exceed $250,000 annually, encompassing salaries for staff, office expenses, and other operational needs. While a portion of these costs would be covered by state funds, Adams County taxpayers would bear a significant share of the financial burden.

The debate over HB 283 highlights broader challenges faced by rural counties like Adams County. As one of only four counties in Ohio served by a single Common Pleas Court judge, Adams County’s situation underscores the difficulties of balancing limited resources with increasing demands on the judicial system. Proponents argue that prioritizing child welfare and court efficiency justifies the expenditure, while opponents caution against placing undue financial strain on a small county with a limited tax base.

The bill’s passage through the Ohio General Assembly also raises questions about the role of state versus local decision-making in judicial matters. While state lawmakers have championed the legislation as a necessary intervention, some local officials and residents have expressed frustration at what they perceive as a top-down approach that does not fully account for the county’s unique circumstances.

With Senate Bill 158 now on Governor Mike DeWine’s desk, all eyes are on the governor’s next move. His decision will determine whether Adams County’s Common Pleas Court undergoes its first major restructuring in decades. In the meantime, community stakeholders continue to voice their perspectives, highlighting the complex and often competing priorities involved in the debate.

Proponents remain hopeful that the governor will sign the bill into law, enabling Adams County to address what they see as urgent judicial needs. Opponents, however, are urging DeWine to veto the measure, emphasizing the importance of fiscal responsibility and the need for additional data to support such a significant change.

As the clock ticks toward Governor DeWine’s decision, the future of House Bill 283 remains uncertain. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for Adams County’s judicial system, financial health, and most importantly, its residents. Whether the bill’s passage will herald a new era of efficiency and protection for vulnerable populations or exacerbate financial and operational challenges remains to be seen.

The People’s Defender will continue to monitor developments, providing updates on the governor’s decision, subsequent actions, and ongoing community reactions. For now, the debate serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities involved in crafting policies that balance efficiency, fiscal responsibility and the welfare of those most in need.