00cLinnB
The Linndale mayor's court closed after a 2012 law eliminated the courts in places with fewer than 200 residents.
(Plain Dealer File Photo)
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Critics of Ohio's mayor's courts say the time has long passed for their extinction, but mayor's court officials say they offer lower fees and more services for Ohioans who land in their courts.
Ohio is one of only two states that allow mayor's and appointed magistrates to handle violations of local ordinances. (Louisiana is the other.)
Mayor's courts handle misdemeanor and traffic offenses, including driving while intoxicated. Most of revenue from fines and fees goes directly to the municipality's general operating fund, which critics say should disqualify the courts' existence.
"Our system of government is established on the principal that each branch has distinct and separate responsibilities... ones that are clearly defined to prevent conflicts," the late Chief Justice Thomas Moyer told lawmakers in 2007.
But mayor's courts haven't gone away, and supporters say eliminating the courts won't resolve the issue of high and inconsistent ticket costs across the state. For starters, municipal courts often set higher fees to pay for full-time judges, security personnel and other costs not incurred by smaller mayor's courts.
State and local officials need to evaluate the fees they've set, said Mike Brickner, policy director of the ACLU of Ohio.
"There is something perverse about using court costs and forcing them against people who are very low income to pay for counsel for very low income people," Brickner said. "The state and we as taxpayers should be able to step in."
Courts in the crosshairs of legislators
Linndale's infamous I-71 speed trap drew the ire of many state lawmakers of the years. The village has about 178 residents; its mayor's court handled about 4,600 traffic and misdemeanor cases in 2012, or enough for about 26 per resident. An estimated $800,000 of the town's $1 million budget came from ticket revenue.
That year, the legislature banned mayor's courts for jurisdictions with fewer than 200 residents. Courts in Linndale and a handful of other towns closed.
Sen. Tom Patton, a Strongsville Republican who will join the Ohio House next year, sponsored the legislation. Patton said the courts should be eliminated, and positions should be added at municipal courts to handle the larger caseload.
"Let judges be elected by the people and serve the people rather than a person the mayor hires," Patton said in a recent interview.
State legislators have talked about eliminating mayor's courts for decades, but the political will hasn't resulted in an outright ban.
"Nobody wants to upset their mayors back home," Patton said.
A lower-cost, convenient alternative
Mayor's court officials make a strong case for their courts:
- They usually charge lower fees than their municipal courts.
- Mayor's courts often hold evening sessions, so people don't have to miss work.
- Payment plans are often flexible, and local officials consider individuals' circumstances.
- More money from violations stays in the community.
- Cases that are appealed are transferred to municipal court, where defendants get a fresh start.
- Mayor's courts alleviate municipal courts' caseloads -- Ohio's 301 mayor's courts heard 299,203 cases during 2015, according to quarterly reports filed with the Ohio Supreme Court.
North Olmsted Mayor Kevin Kennedy started a mayor's court there in 2013. He said tickets haven't increased significantly since then, but the city has added about $250,000 in annual revenue.
"The goal is not to write tickets. The goal is we can run a much more efficient court here," Kennedy said. "To suggest this could be more efficient if you did away with mayor's courts would be to not understand the role of mayor's courts."
North Olmsted charges $95 in court costs compared to $143 at Rocky River Municipal Court, where more serious cases go.
The courts tend to be more informal than their larger counterparts. In a Grove City mayor's court last week, the magistrate reduced or eliminated penalties for several offenders, gave others more time to decide how to proceed and heard the case of a defendant who arrived 45 minutes late.
"We were able to get him in," Court Clerk Joy Bedard said. "Had he been in Columbus, that probably wouldn't have happened."
Bedard, president of the Association of Mayor's Court Clerks of Ohio, said mayor's courts settle neighborhood disputes that don't need to tie up the bigger courts.
"We really do provide a service to our communities," Bedard said. "We hear from people who have to go to court in downtown Columbus for a ticket from the sheriff or a state trooper who want to handle it here."
Eliminating state fees
Eliminating mayor's courts won't solve the problem of high or varying court costs.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer, a vocal opponent of mayor's courts, was concerned that a speeding ticket could cost someone more than $200 at some courts in Northeast Ohio.
He said lawmakers need to revisit the state fees. Mayor's and municipal courts collect state fees as part of their court costs -- $39 for moving violations and $29 for misdemeanor offenses.
Here's a breakdown of those fees:
- Indigent defense support fund: $25 for moving violations and $20 for misdemeanor offenses, helps pay the state share for public defenders.
- Victims of crime fund
- Drug law enforcement fund: $3.50 for moving violations, which helps defray costs for drug task forces
- Indigent driver alcohol treatment fund: $1.50 for moving violations, which covers mandatory drug treatment for indigent OVI offenders.
- Indigent defense support fund: $10 for non-moving violations.
Pfeifer said the state budget should pay for court costs across the state.
"Various fees were well intentioned -- probably all worthy causes -- but they should be funded through the general revenue fund of the state of Ohio and not on the back of someone who happens to drive a bit too fast on a city street or county highway," Pfeifer said in an interview.
Other solutions
The ACLU's Brickner agrees that fees shouldn't be collected to run the courts.
"There is something perverse about using court costs and forcing them against people who are very low income to pay for counsel for very low income people," Brickner said. "The state and we as taxpayers should be able to step in."
Brickner said courts should consider alternatives to collecting fees such as completing educational or rehabilitation programs or give judges more leeway to forgive fines.
Patton said perhaps setting a standard fee schedule would help. He said legislators and judicial experts should talk next year about the courts and how to rein in excessive fees.
"This is a problem, given the disparate charges all over the board," Patton said in a recent interview. "The easiest fix would be from the courts themselves."