BY SANDY THEIS
Enquirer Columbus Bureau
COLUMBUS -- Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer, a Republican widely seen as the swing vote that overturned Ohio's school funding formula, finds his re-election this fall threatened by members of his own party.
The No. 2 House Republican supports Mr. Pfeifer's Democratic rival. Business interests that commonly underwrite Republican campaigns are backing his opponent. And his former Senate colleagues even dragged his name into a bitter May primary that involved his daughter.
Justice Pfeifer, 55, has a history of bucking the wishes of party leaders, but his most recent troubles stem from last year's 4-3 court ruling that declared the state's method of funding public schools inadequate and unconstitutional.
The ruling infuriated conservatives and ignited a yearlong feud in the Republican-ruled Ohio General Assembly. It handed struggling Democrats a campaign issue and underscored how politics remains a factor in the officially non-partisan contests for the state's highest court.
Despite his place at the center of the storm, Justice Pfeifer remains nonplussed, at least in public.
"I don't mind the criticism about the decision," he said. "If I'm not big enough to accept whatever heat is coming, then I don't belong here."
What he does mind, he said, is those who believe justices should base decisions on what is best for the political party and not the citizenry.
"Our job is to decide whether something is constitutional," he said. "The public understands that."
The ruling decried the school funding formula and the inequities that result from it. Justices outlined a general set of principles that the Legislature must follow when crafting a new formula and gave them one year to complete the work.
While Justice Pfeifer was one of two Republicans who voted in the majority, he was the only Republican who supported the case who is facing re-election in November. Joining him in the decision were
Democrats Francis Sweeney and Alice Resnick, and Republican Andy Douglas.
After the ruling, some Democrats and educators praised Justice Pfeifer's courage and candor. Some conservatives suggested the party field a primary candidate against him.
Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett said he "is aware of some strong feelings about Justice Pfeifer within the party," but said he believes Justice Pfeifer will win re-election to a second six-year term.
"Paul Pfeifer is very well known," Mr. Bennett said, and voters seldom make decisions based on one position alone.
Justice Pfeifer may soon take another controversial stand. Hearings on the adequacy of legislative school financing reforms are scheduled in August before Perry County Common Pleas Court Judge Linton Lewis, the judge who first declared the funding system unconstitutional. The losing side is expected to appeal directly to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Justice Pfeifer's election
opponent is Ronald Suster, a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge and former member of the Ohio House of Representatives.
Justice Pfeifer also is a former House member. Yet Mr. Suster, a Democrat, has support from some influential House Republicans, including Speaker Pro Tempore Bill Batchelder, R-Medina.
"I encouraged Ron Suster strongly to run," said Mr. Batchelder, the No. 2 House leader. "It's a nice choice for the voters between an activist (Pfeifer) and a judge (Suster) who is pretty much bound by the plain language of the law."
"Activist' judge
In addition to the school-funding case, Mr. Batchelder noted that Justice Pfeifer has helped overturn portions of Ohio's 1987 tort reform law, which limits the damages that can be collected in personal injury or malpractice cases. Trial lawyers and labor unions loved the ruling; insurance companies and other big businesses loathed it. The same four justices who overturned the school funding case voted to review a new tort reform law, passed last year. Some business leaders said the court's decision to hear the case signaled its plans to toss out the new law, too.
Insurance companies and big business are vigorously defending the new law and directly taking on justices they fear will overturn it. Back in May, a business coalition began underwriting billboards that say, "Trial lawyers gave $1.3 million to Ohio's Supreme Court candidates. Wonder why?" It lists a toll-free number to call for more information.
The family name
The bulk of Justice Pfeifer's campaign money comes from trial lawyers who generally fund Democratic campaigns. In an unusual move, the United Auto Workers and Ohio Education Association have endorsed Justice Pfeifer, even though they usually endorse Democrats. Mr. Suster's money comes mostly from insurance companies and other business interests.
Republicans' dissatisfaction with Justice Pfeifer even spilled over into a state Senate race involving his daughter, Lisa.
Ms. Pfeifer decided to try for her father's old Senate seat. To do so, she competed for the Republican Party's endorsement against Larry Mumper, who was appointed to the seat last November.
Senate leaders endorsed Mr. Mumper. Ms. Pfeifer jumped into the primary anyway, and early polls showed she had a good chance of winning.
That changed when Mr. Mumper debuted TV commercials and mailings critical of both Ms. Pfeifer and her father.
"It became real clear real fast that this was more than a race about myself and Sen. Mumper," Ms. Pfeifer said. The mailing, she said, "hurt worst of all."
8-year-old case
It resurrected a sore subject for the Pfeifer family: A 1990 trial that was a victory for Mr. Pfeifer's legal career but a defeat for his political one.
Under a headline that blared "Remember . . ." the campaign brochure said: "Lisa Pfeifer says she cares about our schools. But remember that her father sued our schools for millions of dollars and forced them into financial difficulty just a few years ago. . . . The Pfeifers put their financial gain above the interest of our local schools -- and our children. When you vote on Tuesday, Don't Forget. Vote Against Lisa Pfeifer."
The case stemmed from a 1989 traffic accident. Justice Pfeifer represented the family of a pickup truck driver who was killed. The accident also involved a school bus and semi-truck, whose drivers both agreed that Mr. Pfeifer's client was not at fault. The truck driver offered to pay half of the damages and settle; the school resisted. So then-private attorney Pfeifer took them both to court.
A Crawford County jury decided that only the bus driver was at fault and ordered a judgment in excess of $1 million. School officials were livid, insisting the judgment threatened the district's financial health.
Crawford County turns
Eight months after the verdict, Mr. Pfeifer fell 1,234 votes short of being elected Ohio's attorney general. Most political experts thought the lawsuit cost him the race because he failed to carry Crawford County, a traditional Republican region and a place he called home for decades.
Ms. Pfeifer, a substitute teacher and coach, is quick to defend her family's support for schools and her father's role in overturning the funding formula.
"I think he still believes he made the right decision, too," she said.
Justice Pfeifer wrote a two-page opinion that explained his reasons for joining the school-funding majority. It focuses largely on matters of equity -- or the the spending differences between some of the richest schools and some of the poorest.
Despite an infusion of state dollars, many of the inequities are still present, according to projections from the Legislative Budget Office.
Senate President Richard Finan, R-Evendale, maintains that the funding formula is constitutional, even before the changes -- and a campaign committee he controls paid to produce and mail the father - daughter brochure.
Colleagues turn foes
Although Mr. Finan and Mr. Pfeifer served together in the Ohio Senate for 16 years, Mr. Finan defended the mailing's harsh tone. Ms. Pfeifer started the feud, he said, with campaign literature that accused Mr. Mumper of having "voted for the billion-dollar tax increase" -- a reference to the proposed sales-tax increase that voters defeated.
When asked if he feared whether the flier could hurt Justice Pfeifer in the November election, Mr. Finan replied, "I wasn't worried about Paul Pfeifer. I was worried about Sen. Larry Mumper. Larry Mumper is one of our own. We defend him." Mr. Mumper won the primary race last month.
One highly placed Republican said he expects some traditional Republican groups to endorse Mr. Suster and said Mr. Finan has privately discussed the possibility of endorsing him, too.
"Did I talk to somebody about endorsing Suster? I don't think I could comment on that," Mr. Finan said.
