Ohio Legislative Black Caucus defends judge who mocked Charlie Kirk assassination

A measure that could lead to the removal of a Cincinnati judge from the bench over alleged comments he posted in the wake of conservative luminary Charlie Kirk’s assassination is overreach and politically motivated, the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus said.

State Reps. Adam Mathews, R-Lebanon, and DJ Swearingen, R-Huron, have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 26, which would require Cincinnati Municipal Court Judge Ted N. Berry to appear before lawmakers and argue why he shouldn’t be removed from the bench.

In a statement, the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus pointed out that Berry is the son of Ted Berry, Cincinnati’s first Black mayor, who served as The Queen City’s mayor from 1972 to 1975.

However, Mathews and Swearingen point to public social media posts Berry allegedly made that the lawmakers argue celebrated Kirk’s Sept. 10 assassination, including “Rest in Hatred & Division!” and “So, a white guy killed him! Color it Karma!”

“This resolution represents a serious overreach of legislative authority and a troubling misuse of taxpayer resources,” the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus said in a statement.

“The Ohio Constitution establishes a clear process for judicial discipline through the Supreme Court’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, not through political theater in the General Assembly,” the caucus added. “To disregard this process is to erode the very separation of powers that upholds our democracy.”

Mathews and Swearingen disputed that politics are driving their push.

“This is not a matter any of us take lightly,” the lawmakers said in prepared sponsor testimony. “Judicial removal is among the most serious constitutional responsibilities entrusted to the General Assembly. It is reserved for those rare instances where a judge’s conduct severely undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary such that corrective action becomes necessary to preserve the rule of law.

“…Such remarks made by a sitting judge are profoundly inconsistent with the standards of impartiality, dignity, and respect required under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct,” the sponsors added. “Judge Berry publicly celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk on social media, directly violating the code of conduct.”

The resolution would not remove Berry from the bench. Rather, it would summon the judge to appear and provide a reason why he should not be removed from the bench pursuant to the Ohio Constitution.

“House Concurrent Resolution 26 does not presume guilt, nor does it substitute legislative judgment for judicial discretion,” the sponsors said in their prepared testimony. “Rather, it initiates the constitutional process of due notice and opportunity to be heard afforded to any judge subject to removal. This resolution directs that Judge Berry be summoned before the General Assembly to explain his actions and provide any defense or context he believes appropriate.

“If, after that hearing, both chambers of the legislature determine by a two-thirds vote that his conduct warrants removal, only then would such an order take effect,” they added. “Members of the committee, this resolution is not about politics. It is about the public’s right to an impartial judiciary. It is about ensuring that every Ohioan, regardless of belief, background, or party, can walk into a courtroom and trust that justice will be blind.”

While the resolution has garnered headlines, Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima, indicated the measure likely wouldn’t proceed.

“I understand that the legislators wanted to make a particular point, but I don’t see it going any further,” Huffman said, Cincinnati.com reported.