This is a continuation of my evaluation of the issues appearing on the November ballot.
The Cuyahoga County Democratic Party issued its endorsements for Issues 3 and 10 through 14. This is my take on Issue 13
Democratic Party position: Yes
Matt’s position: No
Why This Issue Exists
Cuyahoga County has two legal offices:
An independently elected County Prosecutor
A Law Director appointed by the County Executive and confirmed by Council (remember yesterday’s post?)
The Law Director serves at the pleasure of the County Executive. At the same time, the Law Director advises both the Executive and County Council.
Ohio law assigns significant civil and litigation responsibilities to county prosecutors. Cuyahoga County’s Charter also created a Law Department, producing overlapping authority.
A 2025 Ohio Attorney General opinion concluded that several statutory duties remained with the Prosecutor because they had not been properly transferred through the Charter. Agreements between county officials were not enough to reassign those legal duties.
Proposed Division Under Issue 13
The Prosecutor would control litigation. The Law Director would handle much of the county’s transactional and daily legal work.
County officials could still seek advice from the Prosecutor.
Main Objections
The Handoff Problem
The Law Director could advise the county to enter into a contract without requiring the Prosecutor’s approval.
If that contract later produces a lawsuit, the Prosecutor would be responsible for defending the county even though the Prosecutor may not have drafted, negotiated or approved the original agreement.
My concern is that the Prosecutor could be forced to clean up a legal problem created by another office.
Divided Records and Responsibility
Separate offices may require files, discovery, negotiations and institutional knowledge to be transferred between departments.
I prefer one legal department with responsibility for matters from initial advice through final litigation.
Council Shares the Executive’s Lawyer
The Law Director advises both the Executive and Council but serves at the pleasure of the Executive.
Issue 12 does not change that arrangement.
The structural problem is:
Executive appoints Law Director → Council confirms → Law Director advises Executive and Council → Executive retains removal authority.
I am not claiming that a Law Director will provide biased legal advice. My concern is that the Law Director’s institutional independence is limited.
Preferred Model
I would place the county’s civil legal responsibilities under the independently elected Prosecutor.
That office could contain separate divisions/roles for:
Criminal prosecution
Civil litigation
Contracts and transactions
Labor and employment
Public records
Risk management
Advice to the Executive
Independent advice to County Council
Separate attorneys could be assigned to the Executive and Council while remaining inside one overall legal department.
Issue 13 makes the division of work clearer, but it still divides responsibility between two separately controlled legal offices.
I would rather have contracts, negotiations, legal advice, litigation, discovery and institutional knowledge under the elected Prosecutor’s Office.
Council should also have legal counsel institutionally independent from the Executive.
This makes perfect sense, since it seems duplicative to have separate offices for essentially one function. Also, the point you had where the prosecutor would have to clean up any misdirection of law from the law director and, by extension, the county council didn’t escape the red flag zone.
Thank you for all you are doing in the run up to this election. Educated voters are a commodity we need more of.