Change to North Carolina Judicial Selection on Ballot

North Carolina voters will at the next election vote on whether to amend their state constitution to change the way judicial vacancies are filled.

Currently, North Carolina judges are elected and mid-term vacancies are filled by the governor until the next election.

The proposal would have nominating commission pass its findings to the legislature which would pick two nominees from which the governor must choose.

Perhaps no coincidence that the governor is a Democrat but Republicans hold majorities in the legislature.

NY Times on Many States' Judicial Selection

The New York Times recently editorialized in favor of judicial independence against partisan attacks by Republicans. The Times mentions Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Missouri.

"Massive Changes" to North Carolina Judicial Selection?

A special committee of the North Carolina Senate is "looking at whether to propose massive changes to the state's judiciary" according to the Associated Press.

North Carolina judicial elections have been controversial and some testimony "backed altering the state's current method of selecting judges, offering options to legislators focusing more on appointments and confirmations and less on current head-to-head elections."

University of North Carolina law school dean Martin Brinkley said "he personally backs a method mimicking the selection of federal judges — executive branch nominations then subject to legislative confirmation."   I agree.

NC Judicial Terms Shortening?

Partisan battling over North Carolina's methods of judicial selection enters a new phrase. Currently, judges of the North Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals serve eight-year terms, while North Carolina District Court judges currently serve four-year terms. Republican committee chairs of the North Carolina legislature proposed a constitutional amendment reducing terms for all judges to two years and ending sitting judges’ terms in 2018.  This is opposed by the Progressive Pulse.

Partisan Judicial Elections in North Carolina

North Carolina changed its trial judge elections from partisan to non-partisan in the 1990's. Now it is returning to partisan elections. Republican legislators supporting partisan elections overrode the veto of the Democratic governor.

Retention Elections Unconstitutional in North Carolina

A 2015 North Carolina statute tried to change judicial retention from contestable elections (2 or more candidates) to retention elections (yes or no vote on retaining the incumbent). As the News & Observer puts it, the "law gives most sitting justices the option to be re-elected to additional eight-year terms without head-to-head matchups with challengers. Instead, the justice can choose to be elected in an up-or-down vote." The Superior Court held this unconstitutional.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article61153192.html#storylink=cpy

North Carolina Supreme Court Switches to Retention Elections

North Carolina judges are initially selected in contestable elections and most must prevail in contestable elections to win another term of office. But a new law allows NC Supreme Court justices to secure another term by merely winning a retention election, in which voters choose whether or not to retain the justice but there is no opposing candidate. Nationally, judges nearly always win retention elections.

State Supreme Court Campaign Contributions

State supreme court campaign contributions detailed in a report by the Brennan Center, which is summarized by law professor Rick Hasen.

The progressive Brennan Center report uses strong language about Kansas conservatives: "Bullying in the Heartland—Political Assaults on the Kansas Supreme Court."

It also discusses North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee. 

North Carolina Judicial Elections May Become Partisan

Elections for North Carolina appellate court judgeships have been officially nonpartisan since 2004, but AP reports that Republicans are trying again to shift them back to partisan races. The North Carolina "House tentatively agreed Thursday to legislation to require state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals candidates run with their party affiliation on the ballots."

West Virginia Switches From Partisan to Non-Partisan Judicial Elections

According to Bill Raftery, West Virginia's legislature voted to "move the state to nonpartisan judicial elections at all levels" making it "the fourth state to move from partisan to nonpartisan elections in the last twenty or so years:

• Arkansas: In 2000 voters approved Amendment 80, a rewrite of the state’s Judiciary Article, which included nonpartisan elections for judges.
• Mississippi: Most state courts were moved to nonpartisan elections under the 1994 Nonpartisan Judicial Elections Act; Justice of the Peace Court races remain partisan.
• North Carolina: The state’s courts were moved to nonpartisan ballots in a piecemeal fashion: Superior (1996), District (2001), and finally the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court (2002)."

NY Times Covers Outside Campaign Spending in Judicial Races

The paper of record shows a photo of a North Carolina Supreme Court justice carrying campaign signs across the street.  For many of us that's an settling image, which is probably what the NY Times intended, as it's no fan of judicial elections.  For others, I suppose it's a positive image of the powerful being subject to democratic accountability.

The NY Times writes
"Judges on higher courts are elected rather than appointed in 22 states, and in 16 more they must face retention elections at some point after their selection, according to Justice at Stake, an advocacy group in Washington. Corporations and political parties — and trial lawyers and unions — seek ideologically compatible state judges, legal experts say, because their rulings can affect redistricting and laws on such key issues as liability, medical malpractice and workers’ compensation."

More on the NC races' campaign funding here

More on the NC races here

More Money for NC Supreme Court Races

Justice at Stake says The Republican State Leadership Committee announced that its Judicial Fairness Initiative would fund conservative judge candidates who have conservative ideologies.

In North Carolina, a group called Justice for All NC has received $650,000 from the Republican State Leadership Committee and has begun airing a TV ad critical of Justice Robin Hudson.

Campaign Spending for North Carolina Supreme Court Tops $1 Million

The North Carolina Supreme Court primary on May 6 features incumbent Justice Robin Hudson against challengers Superior Court Judge Eric Levinson and Jeanette Doran in the three-way primary.  The top-two will be on the general election ballot in November. 

The of $1 million includes spending by candidates and by independent groups. Bert Brandenburg of Justice at Stake says "“What compounds the problem this year is that North Carolina has just done away with its public financing program for judicial elections."

Important North Carolina Supreme Court Races

Four of the seven seats on the North Carolina Supreme Court are up for election this year.

This passage from the News Observer gives a flavor for some non-partisan judicial elections:

 "Lewis, an N.C. Central University law school alumna who has clerked for Democrat Dan Blue when he was speaker of the N.C. House of Representatives, campaigns as a Republican in the nonpartisan race...Though judicial races are nonpartisan, the field of three will be narrowed during the primary election.  Republican Party leaders have said they are considering endorsing candidates this year in the statewide judicial races."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/04/3759010/nc-supreme-court-races-draw-political.html#storylink=cpy