Print This Post
Mar
16
I don’t know and I’ve never known Jennifer Martinez, before she married an Atzberger or since. This post is based on information gleaned from this Plain Dealer article, Jennifer’s website (I’m using Jennifer since we can all agree that that is her first name), and googling. (And, by the way, I wonder why the PD chose to call her Martinez Atzberger, as opposed to Martinez by itself.)
Jennifer is in a crowded race to become a candidate for Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court judge:
Term beginning Jan. 3: Anthony A. Gedos (D), Milton D. Jefferson (D), Lisa R. Kraemer (D), Christine T. Leneghan (D), Jennifer Martinez (D), Peter A. Murray (D), Thomas F. O’Malley (D), Mike Telep (D), Joe Young (D), Martin Keenan (R).
Mike Telep and Marty Keenan have been around for a long time, at least since I was clerking in the juvie court and of counsel at a two-person domestic relations firm. I recognize the name Leneghan but I’m not sure I know her. I don’t recognize any of the other names and I’m not sure whose seat this is that’s being given up (there are two other juvie court seats up, out of a total of six).
What about this race has made news?
The PD says that Jennifer says that attorney Henry Hilow is challenging her candidacy by saying that she’s improperly used her maiden name because he supports one of her opponents. The paper doesn’t identify which opponent that is.
The gist, from the PD and Jennifer’s website, is that Hilow and Michael Vu say that because Jennifer should have used her husband’s last name in her campaign and run for Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court judge – you know, that uber desirable job everyone fights for, after they, like Jennifer, spend years as a Juvenile Court public defender, that other equally glamorous job for which law grads clamor – and didn’t, she has been removed from the ballot.
Vu says that he believes the community knows her by Jennifer Martinez Atzberger. Jennifer says that she uses both names professionally (those being her maiden name – Jennifer Martinez and her married name, Jennifer Martinez Atzberger).
Who is in a better position to know which name the community knows best? You’d think Jennifer would be, wouldn’t you? (I mean, unless there’s more we don’t know – and there always is.) But maybe not. I don’t know what Vu knows.
I haven’t a clue as to who knows Jennifer by which name and whether or not she’s re-asserting her maiden name for political reasons. I don’t know if she’s qualified to be on the court. But the matter of being told which name she must use, based on the little information available, sounds like a case of gender discrimination in one of its most subtle forms.
I found an LA Times obit reference to her as Jennifer Martinez-Atzberger. I found a cached 2005 GAL Advisory Council list with her name as Jennifer Atzberger. Her campaign website lists her as Jennifer Martinez.
What’s campaign law on this issue?
I’m no expert but a little hunting found me the Ohio Supreme Court case of Scott Ronald Miller – a person who has lost several elections, before and after he tried to change his middle name to Russo – even though he’s unrelated to any Russos. (The Sup. Crt. confirmed the appellate court’s upholding of the lower court’s summary judgement decision against Miller.) Conclusion: you can’t change your name to get an advantage or avoid disaster.
Is that what Jennifer has done?
Based on the available information, this case looks far more like my life as a Three Name Woman than a case of changing a name to win an election (as Jennifer states in the PD article, even if all the eligible Cuyahoga County Hispanics voted for her, she still wouldn’t win).
What I see is two men dragging this woman through the ringer of society’s mixed messages about women and what it means to take, or not take, your spouse’s name, and to use, or not use , your spouse’s name.
You see what are called evergreen articles every few months about the agony of whether a woman should change her name when she gets married. It’s not life-threatening, but it’s a real pain in the neck either way because of the cache of doing it, or not doing it. There’s almost no neutral ground.
I know because I thought I was going to keep my maiden name after I got married until it became obvious that I wasn’t and that instead, I would use my maiden name and go by Jill Miller Zimon.
But the more forms I had to fill out and the more tedium I detected in people as they tried to use my three names, the more frequently I started to go by Jill Zimon.
On my Ohio bar registration materials: Jill Miller Zimon
My website: Jill Miller Zimon
My business cards: Jill Miller Zimon
But on all my kids’ school forms, medical forms, camp forms: Jill Zimon – because it takes too damn long to keep putting Miller.
Not to mention that entities then don’t know whether to file me under Miller or under Zimon.
For several years, the radiologists’ offices didn’t have my mammogram info together (big breast cancer family history and I’ve been having mammos since before I was married and really was just Jill A. Miller) because some of my records were under Miller and some were under Zimon.
Frequent Flyer miles: I lost thousands because after I got married and was flying as Jill Zimon, Continental no longer would honor Jill Miller’s miles as belonging to me. (I fought the law and the law won my miles.)
Bank records: Don’t even ask. I just went through an issue with the bank I’ve used for nearly 15 years and they still have my name three different ways on five different accounts.
Since I began to write, I’ve been diligent in using Jill Miller Zimon. But still, when I go to conferences, sometimes I’m under Miller and sometimes I’m under Zimon.
Now, the issue with Jennifer and Mr. Vu’s interpretation of the problem has another twist that is discriminatory:
Even if members of the community know her by Jennifer Martinez Atzberger, that means that only those people who’ve met Jennifer after she got married in 1996 and had a factual basis for even knowing her husband’s name would be eligible to sign her petition.
Now you’re saying, WHAT??
Do you know how many people I knew before I got married? In this community? Do you know how many people know me now? Do you know how many people have only known me as a blonde? And how many people are still shocked to see how blonde I am?
I’m not dissing the laws. I’ve blogged about the need for uniformity of laws and their application as they relate to candidate petitions before.
But when it comes to women who are known by both their maiden and their married names, something’s got to give so that society’s inability to let a woman have more than one identity does not discriminate against her ability to run for elected positions.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:41 pm March 16th, 2006 in Politics
Comments
31 Responses to “The Political Side Effects of Being a Woman”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
I use Lisa Renee Ward for everything on the net and for the Toledo Free Press, and then hyphenate that with my married name for most other things, except for banking and health insurance where it’s just my married name.
My main problem is since we moved a few months ago the mailman can’t seem to grasp the fact that I use more than one name and some of my mail has been sent back as me not living here. Hopefully that’s finally straighted out.
I think if she wants to make it easier for voters to remember her and just use her maiden name that’s what she should be able to do. Lots of women use their maiden name as their professional name. It seems a rather nit picky thing to try to call her on.
However, the upside to it is she is getting more attention so this could very well backfire on them by giving her a higher name recognition.
Yup – I think what you do, what I do, is quite common.
And I agree also that this could completely backfire on the challenger(s). In a crowded contest “down ticket” from the bigger judgeships, it could really help her. Hadn’t really thought of that! She’s getting more press than any of the other juvie court candidates, that’s for sure.
I also wonder because when you read the Plain Dealer article, she states she never changed her name, which makes me wonder what Social Security and her driver’s license names are under. If she is listed as Martinez on both of those then her legal name is Martinez and if she used her married name they could have tried to have her thrown out for not using her legal name.
That could be what wins her an appeal if she can prove that “is” her legal name.
I had similar thoughts, Lisa Renee. I even emailed the PD Metro editor to see if there might be some more info forthcoming.
For all the years I was married I used the hypenated form in my signatures and everwhere else I could get it to work.
After the divorce I dropped using the name in business and correspondence but I felt I should keep using my ex’s surname in any dealings that involved my children – so all my medical records still use the full hyphenated name.
Now the kids are grown and except for official documents like drivers license, etc., which I can’t change without going to court (and have no time for the rigamarole, anyway)I am free to use simply my maiden name as my legal alias here in California without going for an official name change. Perhaps the law here is like that because of Hollywood?
I have no issue with a person using whatever name they want as long as it’s not to defraud someone. Some people must really be reaching for a distraction on this candidate to be grasping at such a silly thing as what name she uses. I hope it does backfire on the ijits.
Thanks, Dawno. I hope to read more about the situation in the local newspaper or maybe in their online political website, or maybe even from the editor I contacted. I am definitely following it, though.
Jennifer Martinez was a student in a class I taught at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in the late 90s. (The class was an elective course called “Art Law,” allowing me to wear both my lawyer and artist hats.) She didn’t speak up a whole lot during class (not totally silent, just not a vocal student), but when it came to the final exam she proved to be an excellent student by getting the best score in the class.
The point, though, is that she went by Martinez, not Atzberger.
BTW, Jill, thanks for your comment re: Peter Sikora. I enjoyed meeting him (he was the only candidate I talked to in person after the forum).
Neat insight, Jeff. I really do hope the PD will come up with more on the story and not let it hang, at least in the case that I don’t figure it out on my own first – I know I could always just call her and ask!
Again, your 2006 website is just incredible for the depth of information. I hope you’re getting a lot of hits because voters should know this stuff.
My name is Joe Young and I am one of the many candidates running along with Jennifer for the open seat on Juvenile Court. As a nearly fifteen year practitioner of juvenile law (and nearly eight years now practicing at juvenile court with the county prosecutor’s office), I think it’s unfortunate that the “name game” of local politics has much more influence on an election than does a candidate’s qualifications. I have gotten to know Jennifer over the course of the campaign season, and while I don’t know all the facts about her use of name over the years or the pending court challenge, I have personally wished her luck in her challenge to this issue. I think it is a sad day when those with little or no juvenile court experience do what they can to eliminate from the race those who do have some experience in the field. I firmly believe that Juvenile Court, and the voters of Cuyahoga County, will be well served only if the voters make their choice based on qualifications rather than on a candidate’s name. Those of us who are regular practitioners of juvenile law agree upon one thing: while anyone may legally run for the office, it takes someone who is committed to the juvenile court to do the job properly once elected. I therefore challenge all voters, no matter how Jennifer’s appeal turns out, to make a commitment to finding out as much as possible about each of the candidates in this race so that, come election time, voters make the right choice for the children and families of this county. I would be more than happy to discuss these and any other related issues with anyone who might be interested, and can be reached at JoeYoungforJudge@aol.com.
Before Jennifer spends time and money gathering the nearly 4,000 valid signatures she needs, (she may need to get 6,000 signatures to end up with 4,000 valid ones), I suggest that she check out R.C. 3513.05, 3513.052, and State ex rel. Canales-Flores v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections (2005), 108 Ohio St.3d 129, 133-37 (paragraphs 2-043).
Sorry, it’s actually paragraphs 20-43 of the Canales-Flores case.
Thanks – I know that one of the people working on her campaign reads this blog and hopefully she will see that reference. Do you want to give a preview of what it held?
I think the board of elections decision not allow her on the ballot is the correct decision. It is in line with two other decisions, Scott Russo Miller and Lynne McLaughlin Murray. The issue is a simple one that could easily have been avoided. The problem for Jennifer is her lack of understanding of elections and election laws, not uncommon for neophyte to elections. She identifies herself as Jennifer Atzberger at court, not Martinez and not Atzberger Martinez…further she was not at the time identified as Jennifer Martinez on her Supreme court registration card and she was not registered as Martinez as a voter. The law is designed to prevent candidates from deceiving voters, as was the case of Scott Russo Miller. However, the law can not make exceptions based on gender and it was Jennifer’s lack of comprehension of election law that led to her being disqualified. Another example of the ineptitude was her first fundraiser, which lacked a political disclaimer. She could have been brought up on election law violations, although no one chose to complain. That too was an example of election law ignorance. She is a good attorney and a good person, however one would expect an attorney to understand election laws before embarking on a campaign. This issue demonstrates that her decision to run was a spur of the moment decision, not carefully researched or thought out. She didn’t circulate her petitions until the last minute and only filed at the deadline. There is no denying she was trying to run using her maiden name to gain a political advantage among the Hispanic community…becuase there would be no advantage to her running as Atzberger among hispanics. Her supporters claim the challenge was politically motivated….of course it was, everything surrounding an election is political, and Jennifer can’t really complain because she didn’t pay attention to elections laws. The Russo and McLaughlin cases were highly publicized and are well known in political circles. The least we can expect is for a candidate to fill out their voter registration card and ballot with the same name. She failed to do so and has only herself to blame. Better luck next run Jennifer, it’s a tough lesson to learn. Women face a choice when they get married whether to change their name or keep theirs. This can lead to confusion in signing checks, or business cards or whatever, but this was not Jennifer’s problem. This wasn’t a question of her legal name being Martinez, but her using it professionally with her husband’s name. She only went to use the name martinez when she chose to run for judge on the ballot, otherwise she identified herself in court, on her supreme court card, and as a registered voter by another name. All her fault.
Anon-
Thanks for reading and leaving a comment.
If you identify yourself, I might be able to give your erroneous assumption-ridden opinion more value. But without it, I’m afraid that for me, it remains just that – an opinion based on erroneous assumptions.
Thanks for taking the time, though.
That I chose not to identify myself should have no basis on the merit of my opinion. I have read the motions filed by Jennifer and the Court opinion. The facts are:
her driver’s license, county payroll, deed and mortgage, voter registration, and vehicle registration were all in the name of Jennifer Atzberger. The law is clear. She voluntarily abandoned use of her maiden name “martinez” once she changed her name when she got married. This was a conscious choice on her part. She only sought to use the name Martinez to gain a political advantage in a crowded judicial field. Her problem was the same as McLaughlin Murray’s…and her ignorance of the law cost her a shot to run as a Democrat. It’s too bad her mistake cost her that chance, but she has no one but herself to blame. I happen to know and like Jennifer, and that is why I remain anonymous.
Dear Anonymous,
I cannot think of any reason under the Moon why a person who did not have a vested interest in the outcome of this judicial race would spend so much time arming himself with misinformation about me and my candidacy. I also find it suspicious that while your first posting presented itself as a friendly FYI, your second posting almost identically mirrored the claims of my protestor at the Board of Elections. Both of you, by the way, are extremely factually inaccurate. For example, I did not file my petitions on the last day (as did four other candidates in this race), I filed them on January 31st, the last day of the pre-check at the board in order to avail myself of the verification that I had enough signatures weeks prior to the deadline.
Further, your claims regarding the use of my name are completely untrue, and are directly contradicted by the evidence presented to the board and the Court of Appeals. (These exhibits are described in the Court of Appeals opinion which can be downloaded from my website at: http://www.jennifermartinezforjudge.com
You are, however, correct about one thing, the fact that I was a newcomer to the political process, and that put me at a disadvantage. I was not familiar with the legal technicalities of election law used by the political elite to keep outsiders off of the ballots, nor was I an expert in election law when I decided to run for Juvenile Court Judge. I am an expert in Juvenile and Criminal Law, which I thought was the important legal background for running for this position.
Your posting highlights the current pettiness and political games involved in this judicial race, and perhaps, in all of politics these days. Yes, I am new to politics, and frankly, the stress that this experience has caused for myself, my friends, and most importantly, my family, has been terrible. I fight the overwhelming desire to turn my back on this whole process and never look back every day. But I will not succumb to thinly veiled threats to protest the filing of my petitions to run as an independent. Nor will I allow society to tell me that I have voluntarily abandoned my maiden name because I got married; especially when I never changed my name legally and I continued to use my maiden name throughout my married life. I have learned something from previous experience, however, and I can assure you that I have contacted an elections attorney regarding my current situation, and that I have confidence in my decisions!
Finally, while you are entitled to express your opinion, it is hard to have an intelligent debate with someone who is so sure of what my name is, but is unwilling to reveal his own.
Dear Jennifer, I couldn’t have written a better response if I tried (and honest, I was checking my email before trying to compose a response to Anon’s second post).
Thank you for taking the time to post this response. Although I’m sure you, as well as others, can see in hindsight what the consequences can be when we make what we think is not only an innocent choice, but a good choice, regarding what to do with our names once we marry, to make us suffer for society’s failure to keep up with all the permutations of how women are choosing to use their given name as well as their married name is reprehensible.
The law needs consistency, I buy that. But absent fraud, and in consideration of the good faith effort your exhibits demonstrate that you put forth in continuing to use both your maiden and your married name, the BOE and the court of appeals should have let you continue to be on the ballot. Wouldn’t you have agreed, as you have now, to let it be Jennifer Martinez Atzberger if you’d been given that remedy choice?
In any case, thanks for taking the time. I still do not know, and will not attribute to you pure or impure motives. But on its face, your case seems to be one that the BOE and court have wrongly decided.
Anon-
Well – there you have it. Since you say you are a friend of Ms. Martinez Atzberger, I suggest you give her a call or drop her an email to explain yourself. Friends don’t stop being friends over differences of opinion. I’m sure she’ll feel relieved to know that you’ve thought so much on her behalf, even if, as I said the first time and continue to believe, your assumptions are erroneous. This is a funny way to show how well you know and like someone.
As for anonymous commenters’ comments having the same merit as a named commenter, sorry. I guess you’re somewhat new to my blog, but I make it pretty clear. I’ll never delete a comment – anonymous or otherwise – unless it crosses certain lines of decorum (which, as blog host, I obviously get to draw). However, I also get to draw the conclusion that anonymous comments have less merit, to me, than ones from folks I know or at least can check up on. Sorry if that disturbs, upsets or otherwise bothers you. It’s me, I assure you. I know not everyone agrees with that stance.
Now, how you know so much about Martinez Atzberger’s motivations etc – well, in a court of law, don’t we call that speculation and it’s not admissable? I don’t know – I haven’t practiced in a while. But seems to be that only she knows what was in her head.
Would you like to provide some evidence that would support that assertion, and all the others you state as though you are her, or she’s told you as much?
I have in fact spoken with her, people at the Bar, the DMV, read the court opinion, tried to reach Mr. Hilow (who never responded), read the original BOE hearing minutes, contacted the PD reporter and Metro editor about the story and so on.
That is how I know that what you’re perpetuating is your own opinion based on falsehoods.
All of which you’re entitled to, but you won’t be spreading them here without response.
Thanks again for taking the time.
Although you may not like my opinion, it is consistent with established case law from the Court of Appeals. Quite simply she made a mistake. Individuals may not like the application of her situation to the law, but that does not invalidate the law. Her scenerio is identical to other individuals over the years who have made the exact same mistake. What others are arguing is the fairness of the situation, which is quite different from the correct legal outcome. If you are unhappy with the law, then lobby the legislature to change it. Many steps to running for office are technical from filing deadlines, to confusing forms to fill out…but endeavoring to pursue a career in public office is not unlike endeavoring to start a small business. One should familiarize oneself with the requirements of both. Jennifer is not a victim of anything but her own mistake, one that is common and that others have made over the years. I have no vested outcome in this specific election, I just like to closely watch elections because I find the process interesting. I chose to remain anonymous because I worked in Juvenile Court with her, so I am more of an acquaintance than a friend, but given the emotional response by her (understandable given her circumstances), i feel quite justified in not subjecting myself to verbal reprimands from her or her supporters. I just found this blog randomly and injected my opinion, Jennifer has subjected herself in the public eye by entering the public arena by running for office, I have not. And, in the end, she still is able to correct her mistake and run for Judge, although she will be running as an Independent. Check the last time an Independent ran for Judge on the common pleas bench succesfully…It doesn’t happen. If she wins, good for her..but if she loses, the Democratic Party probably would not consider endorsing her in any judicial race for chosing to shun her party and run as an independent. The Republican and Democratic Party in judicial races consider a primary a fair fight to determine who is the standard bearer in the general election. Should she run and lose, which is quite likely given the race dynamics, she would be making another political mistake. But that is her right,and that is for another blog. In any event, I am watching her race, and all the judicial races for the intrigue of the elections.
Anon, you wrote,
“The Republican and Democratic Party in judicial races consider a primary a fair fight to determine who is the standard bearer in the general election.”
Then why did the ODP endorse Espy over Sikora and Wagner over O’Neill? The ODP doesn’t even list the other democrats running for office.
I disagree with your all your interpretations and characterizations of this situation. Dislike has nothing to do with it.
And to Jill…you wrote “Now, how you know so much about Martinez Atzberger’s motivations etc – well, in a court of law, don’t we call that speculation and it’s not admissable? I don’t know – I haven’t practiced in a while. But seems to be that only she knows what was in her head.
Would you like to provide some evidence that would support that assertion, and all the others you state as though you are her, or she’s told you as much?
hen you wrote”
my response is, that is what’s called circumstantial evidence, or speculation…which is admissible in Court. If you read the ohio jury instructions on circumstantial evidence you will read that judges in every court in ohio instruct juries that since it it is impossible to look inside the mind of another that you can use common sense and reason to deduce facts based on common sense and experience. Speculation is allowed in court, in the form of circumstantial evidence, which is considered just as good as other factual evidence. Lawyers always argue and speculate on motive and use circumstantial evidence. Common sense would dictate she chose to use her Hispanic name in a crowded race for advantage, particularly when I stated facts in a previous post outlining the voluminous documents she chose to identify herself not using her ethnic surname. Let’s be honest here, candidates get in trouble when they run for office and try to use a name for electoral advantage that they do not use in everyday life….and why do they do it….for scott miller who chose to start to change his name to Russo, and for other women who chose to run on their irish, italian or other ethnic surname the motivation is obvious….it is for voter appeal….and we all know judicial races are a name recognition contest…
Anonymous said
“There is no denying she was trying to run using her maiden name to gain a political advantage among the Hispanic community”
Is the local Hispanic community large enough to confer electoral advantage on those with Hispanic names? Is the judiciary overflowing with Latinos as opposed to say, Irish names and Russos?
Please post the percentage of Latino judges in Cuyahoga county so that it will be obvious to the rest of us that there is “no denying” that choosing the name “Martinez” is a political advantage.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Dave.
I hope Anon provides what you’ve requested.
“Her scenerio is identical to other individuals over the years who have made the exact same mistake.”
Is it identical to previous cases? You cited “Scott Russo Miller” for example. In what way was Scott Miller a Russo?
Jennifer is actually a “Martinez”.
Hey Dave – not only that, but there’s no maiden name issue with Scott Miller either. And the court of appeals only ruled on the abandoned maiden name issue reviewed by the BOE, no attention at all to the fraud prong, as previous cases have required.
Interesting point Jill. I suppose the fraud charge would be difficult to make given the poor representation of Latino names on the bench. (I’m assuming that’s the case. I can’t name a Latino judge in this county)
Maybe I’ll run for judge but first I’ll change my name to “Hawking” and wait for an O’Malley or Russo to challenge my use of the name to gain advantage among the Nobel Prize winning physicist crowd.
It appears that several of the facts Anonymous depended on for his/her opinion have turned out to be false. I wonder if it has caused Amonymous to re-evaluate at all.
Anon-
You wrote that “Common sense would dictate she chose to use her Hispanic name in a crowded race for advantage, particularly when I stated facts in a previous post outlining the voluminous documents she chose to identify herself not using her ethnic surname. Let’s be honest here, candidates get in trouble when they run for office and try to use a name for electoral advantage that they do not use in everyday life”.
Your facts pertaining to voluminous documents not containing her ethnic surname are simply wrong. She has used both Martinez and Martinez Atzberger since our marriage. Your assertion that the court house and its’ related staff are the only community within which people are known by a given name is quite myopic. In fact, she attended and graduated with honors from Law school after our marriage, here in this community, under the name Jennifer Martinez (as described in an earlier post on this site by one of her professors).
Whatever the outcome, this is a clear case of gender discrimination. This type of ruling is inapplicable to the male sex in any form. I sincerely hope that any woman with an interest in fairness and equality is offended by the use of this tactic in order to eliminate a viable candidate whose only political agenda is to help the children who appear before her.
In a crowded field of 8 or 9 judges, a hispanic name certainly does provide a realistic base for a candidate. In a field of 9, which is what I believe the field originally was in her race, the winning candidate would obvioulsy probably only need around 20-25 percent to win, a loyal base helps a long way to getting that small number…
Dave, Her scenerio is identical to other individuals over the years who have made the exact same mistake.”
Is it identical to previous cases? You cited “Scott Russo Miller” for example. In what way was Scott Miller a Russo?
Jennifer is actually a “Martinez….in response to this comment, I would like to point out that she chose to run using a different name than which she used to register as a voter, in that respect the scenerio is similar to Scott russo Miller….The validity of whether Scott miller was a russo whereas Jennifer was a martinez is irrelevent…what you guys are losing is the factual legal principles, and you are getting mired in an imagined slight against women. I agree her situation is unfortunate, however it was the legally correct outcome. Society is not telling her what to do with her name, the law makes clear she had to run with the same name she was registered to vote with…I thought this was a political blog, and not just specifically a jennifer martinez blog for her, her husband, and a few political supporters….I had hoped you would blog about other judicial races, like the interesting Russo vs. Mannen race, but oh, well. The lamentation on Irish or Italian names doing well is misplaced…the largest ethnic group in this county is german,…and our judiciary is not overflowing with germans….The number of judges is not commensurate with percentages of ethnicity in the county, and certainly a cursory glance will reveal that names do not do well just because they are italian, or irish….the general population is rather uninformed in judicial races and votes for the most familiar name, most people can make a name good….take a look at Dimora for instance, or Sutula…However, other people benefit once an individual establishes a name in politics…That is why once kathleen sutula established herself, that john sutula ran and benefitted from her work….similarly lou stokes long service enabled his daughter to be able to run and win,….and a long history of Russo’s, O’malley’s, gallagher, celebrezze, or whatever local name that is good….
Some of you have a misplaced view that this is gender discrimination…nothing could be further from the truth. It was a simplace mistake on her part, I wish her supporters would look at it objectively and just admit that it was her own fault this happened, instead of pointing fingers at others and saying this isn’t fair, it’s discriminating against women, or the person who filed the dispute had political motives(well, of course, that’s the motivation of almost all people who file disputes) or whatever excuse you may have that avoids the fact that it was her own fault and no one else’s…Why can’t people in our society just take responsibility for their own actions and behavior and not blame or point fingers elsewhere. as i wrote earlier, i had hoped this was a general political blog, but it appears it is not, It seems the only posters here are Jennifer, her husband, and good friends…but, thank you all for your generally polite input. Everyone here seems intelligent and educated, but politically naive…You can be astute as to current affairs and issues and saavy in that arena, but political campaign dynamics and requirements is another arena altogether…goodbye and thank you
Anon -
I can imagine how, since your opinion appears to the minority opinion in this thread, you feel that the commenters and, by extension, this blog are only for her family and good friends.
But, again, your speculation without evidence is wrong.
First, I’ve never met her and I’d ever heard of Jennifer until I saw the Plain Dealer article about the case. Second, I’ve said repeatedly to her and on this blog, I don’t even know if I’d vote for her. But whether or not she’s a worthy candidate has ZERO to do with what’s going on related to her being on the ballot.
Finally – this is not a political blog. There are many entries about politics, but I also write about parenting, my religion and personal issues, among other tihngs.
I hope you’ll read all the entries, and not just ones that for some reason you’ve zeroed in on. Then you can get a better sense of who visits and what they have to say. It’s an eclectic group and I’m always thrilled when new voices enter debates.
Maybe you need to let others who feel similarly to you come and read some of the comments here to help foment your position. They would be welcome so long as it’s done in a civil way.
Although I think that your slant has bordered on chauvinistic, you’ve not resorted to any name-calling or otherwise nasty or inappropriate arguments. I really appreciate that.
Thanks for taking all the time you have for expressing your view. I continue to disagree with it completely, but again, laud you for sticking with it, if that’s really how you feel.
“However, the law can not make exceptions based on gender and it was Jennifer’s lack of comprehension of election law that led to her being disqualified.”
I think “Anon” might be a neophyte when it comes to grammar.
The word is “cannot.”
Maybe you should brush up on your writing skills instead of wasting your time babbling slanted opinions about the most qualified candidate in this race.