Joseph Deters

Justice Joseph T. Deters is running for Supreme Court of Ohio. He lives in Cincinnati and “is married to his wife Tanya and together they have six children and two grandchildren.” 

Employment:

• Justice Deters was appointed to the Supreme Court of Ohio by Governor Mike DeWine, to fill the vacancy created by Justice Sharon Kennedy’s, and assumed office in January 2023. 
  • “Joe Deters has the right combination of experience, legal knowledge, and passion for public service that will serve the citizens of Ohio well as an associate justice of the Ohio Supreme Court,” said Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. “Joe is a long-serving and well-regarded public servant who is known for his legal intellect, reverence for the rule of law, and his accessibility.” 
• He was a Hamilton County prosecutor from 1992-1999 and 2005-2023. He was the “longest-tenured prosecutor in Hamilton County.” 

Education:  

• Received J.D. from University of Cincinnati.  

Associations: 

• Member, Cincinnati Bar Association 
• Member, National District Attorney’s Association 
• Member, the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney’s Association 
• Serves on the St. Joseph’s New Cemetery Board of Trustees 

Controversial Issues:

• Defender of the death penalty. See Cincinnati Enquiry op-ed (2020): "Deters unswayed after Jesuit leader's rebuke on death penalty"
  • "A Vatican official tells Joe Deters he is disappointed, embarrassed and scandalized that the Hamilton County prosecutor would openly defy the Roman Catholic Church in saying a new policy opposing the death penalty is misguided....It didn’t deter Deters, a Roman Catholic. He told The Enquirer that day: 'My dear friends who are priests don’t understand what we’re dealing with. There is evil in this world and there comes a point where society needs to defend itself.'”
• See Chicago Tribune Op-ed (2015): “Ohio prosecutor's comments in fatal traffic stop shooting of Sam DuBose draw critics” 
  • “The blunt prosecutor overseeing the murder case against a University of Cincinnati police officer has expressed outrage over the shooting, but some say his scathing comments could jeopardize the officer's right to a fair trial and have antagonized police.... Prosecutor Joe Deters said Samuel DuBose's shooting came after a 'chicken crap' traffic stop over a missing front license plate, was 'asinine' and was 'without question a murder.'" [Deters] also said the university shouldn't be in the policing business at all....Eugene O'Donnell, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, thinks Deters' comments could be considered unduly prejudicial and inconsistent....Deters is in the 10th year of his second stint as Hamilton County's elected prosecutor after serving seven years in the 1990s. He has previously been both criticized and praised for fiery rhetoric, including his description of suspects in a July 4 attack on a white man as 'lawless thugs' and 'unsalvageable.' The suspects are black. Deters did not mention the suspects' race, but his comments drew criticism from some black activists and in social media."

Public Statements:

• Deters said, regarding the death penalty, "If the citizens of Ohio want the law changed, they should contact their state representative and let him or her know. I have no quarrel with that. However, I am bound to follow the law and I will continue to do so."
• Said "As Justice, my chief responsibility is to respect and honor the rule of law and the Supreme Court’s role as a co-equal branch of government. I view the role of the Court to interpret our constitution while showing judicial restraint from influencing legislation."
  

Notable Cases:

• State v. Daniel (2023) Concurred in DeWine's opinion. The court held that R.C. 2909.15(D)(2)(b) does not violate the seperation-of-powers doctrine because it didn't "infring[e] on the judicial power to impose a sentence, [nor] ... limit[] judicial review of a sentence." (7) The court found "the duty to register as an arson offender does not arise by judgment of a court; it attaches as a matter of law. It is therefore not part of the criminal sentence imposed by the judge." Further the court found "Even if arson-offender registration is part of the criminal sentence, the legislature has authority to limit a court’s discretion with respect to that sentence[.]" (10) "Our review begins with the presumption that the law is constitutional and that we will refuse to uphold it only if it is clearly incompatible with the Constitution. See Cincinnati, Wilmington & Zanesville RR. Co. v. Clinton Cty. Commrs., 1 Ohio St. 77, 82-83 (1852)." (7) Issue: “Does R.C. 2909.15(D)(2)(b) unconstitutionally violate the doctrine of separation of powers[]” by " impermissibly intrud[ing] upon the judicial realm in two ways: first, by infringing on the judicial power to impose a sentence, and second, by limiting judicial review of a sentence." (7) 
• State ex rel. Ohioans United for Reprod. Rts. v. Ohio Ballot Bd., (2023) Per Curiam. Wrote separate concurrence and dissent. Deters wrote, "I agree with much of the lead opinion’s analysis. Where I part ways, however, is with the opinion’s characterization of respondent Ohio Ballot Board’s use of the term 'citizens of the State.' The majority concludes that the term is misleading. It is not. Nothing in the ballot language would lead the average voter to understand that the proposed amendment would curb his or her individual right to object to abortion. So while I concur with the majority’s judgment denying the writ in most respects, I dissent from the majority’s judgment granting a limited writ[.]" (43) Deters found when "citizens of the State" is read in context that, "it seem[ed] unlikely that a voter would conclude that the bullet points using the term 'citizens of the State' describe the amendment’s effect on his or her individual rights." 
  • The Per Curiam decision held, "that the term 'citizens of the State' in the ballot language is misleading. [The court] therefore grant[ed] a limited writ of mandamus ordering the secretary to reconvene the ballot board forthwith and ordering the board to adopt ballot language that accurately describes that the proposed amendment regulates actions of the 'State.'" The court denied all other claims of the "relators." (2) The court found, "[b]ecause of the way the word 'citizens' is used, the average voter might interpret the ballot language to mean that the proposed amendment would prohibit individual citizens—i.e., private actors—from taking actions to burden, penalize,or prohibit abortion. This is particularly true when considering the language of the first bullet point quoted above: 'Prohibit the citizens of the State of Ohio from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means.' (Emphasis added.) By using 'citizens of the State' in the prohibition clause and a different term—'the State'—in the later clause describing who must demonstrate the least restrictive means, the language confusingly suggests that 'citizens of the State' means something different than 'the State.'” The court cited, "Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution requires that the ballot language 'properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted upon.' This court 'shall not' hold that ballot language is invalid 'unless it is such as to mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters.'" (5)
• State v. Hacker (2023). Authored consolidated opinion. The court held, "The Reagan Tokes Law carries a presumption of constitutionality,and to rebut that presumption in a facial challenge, Hacker and Simmons were required to demonstrate that 'no set of circumstances exists under which the [law] would be valid,' Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697. They have not done so. [The Court] therefore affirm[ed] the judgments of the Third and Eighth District Courts of Appeals that the Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional." The court found , the Reagon Tokes Law "did not violate the separation of powers doctrine[,]" that it did "not implicate" the right to jury trial, (13) that the Reagan Tokes was not void for vagueness (17) and it did not violate the defendant's procedural due process rights. (15-17)
  
• The State Ex. Rel. One Person One Vote et all. v. Larose (2023) Concurred per curiam opinion. The court held that the August 8, 2023, special election called by General Assembly in Senate Joint Resolution 2(SJR 2) is authorized by Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution, and therefore denies the writ (14). Issue: This case concerns whether the General Assembly may call for a special election on a legislatively-initiated constitutional amendment on any date, or whether it is bound by the statutes establishing when special elections may generally be held (2). Analysis: Regardless of what the Revised Code may provide with respect to the special elections, however, Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution controls the matter before us (6). Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution authorizes a special election on a constitutional amendment through joint resolution subject only to the limitations contained in the constitutional provision itself (10) (Foreman, 10 Ohio St.2d at 141, 226N.E.2d 116). A statute that conflicts with the General Assembly’s constitutional power under Article XVI, Section 1 to authorize a special election on a certain day is unenforceable to prevent the special election (13). The court found that Ohio Statute, R.C. 3501.40, cannot restrain the secretary from proceeding with a special election authorized by Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Consitution, and the secretary is therefore authorized to proceed with it. Accordingly, relators are not entitled to their requested mandayus relief against the secretary (14). Kennedy, DeWine, and Deters concur. Brunner, Donnelly, and Stewart dissenting issuing two opinions.