Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HCR26 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears resolution to summon Judge Ted Berry after controversial social‑media posts
Summary
Sponsors told the House General Government Committee House Concurrent Resolution 26 would summon Hamilton County Municipal Judge Ted Berry under the Ohio Constitution after public social‑media posts celebrating the killing of Charlie Kirk; sponsors argued the posts violate judicial canons and undermine public confidence while some members urged deference to the Supreme Court disciplinary process.
House Concurrent Resolution 26 received a first hearing before the House General Government Committee after sponsors said Judge Ted Berry posted statements on social media celebrating the killing of Charlie Kirk. Representative Swearingen (sponsor) told the committee the posts included phrasing such as "rest in hatred and division" and "so a white guy killed him. Color it karma," and said those comments are "profoundly inconsistent with the standards of impartiality, dignity, and respect required under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct."
Sponsors framed the resolution as a constitutional, parallel process: it would summon Judge Berry under Article IV, Section 17 of the Ohio Constitution and allow the legislature to hear from the judge and consider whether removal is warranted. Representative Adam Matthews, the joint sponsor, said the Constitution imposes a high bar and that the resolution is reserved for rare instances when a judge's conduct "severely undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Matthews added that the judge will have an opportunity to be heard.
Committee members pressed sponsors on alternatives, including existing disciplinary procedures through the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Ohio Supreme Court. Several members said they were troubled by the social‑media statements but cautioned about setting a precedent that could politicize judicial discipline. Sponsors said the facts are publicly displayed and that a parallel, constitutionally prescribed legislative proceeding is appropriate when a judge's conduct raises a question about impartiality.
No formal vote or removal action occurred at the conclusion of the first hearing. Sponsors said Judge Berry has had time to resign or apologize and that, if the committee proceeds, he would have an opportunity to appear and answer the allegations before the legislature.
