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.

Quick Summaries of Short List for SCT

Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, et al., are discussed by Richard Wolf and David Jackson in USA Today.

Analysis of Judges Kavanaugh and Barrett along with Judges Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit, and Amul Thapar and Raymond Kethledge from the Sixth Circuit, by Adam Feldman at Empirical SCOTUS

Listen to the Case for "Political Appointment" of Judges

Vanderbilt Law Professor Brian Fitzpatrick and University of Kansas Law Professor Stephen Ware discuss what Prof. Fitzpatrick's recent paper calls "political appointment" as the best way to select state judges.

The Case for "Political Appointment" of Judges

Vanderbilt Law Professor Brian Fitzpatrick authored a new paper arguing for what he calls "political appointment" as the best way to select state judges.

Prof. Fitzpatrick and I will discuss this paper in a Teleforum this Monday, May
21, 2018, 1:00pm - 2:00pm EDT for the Federalist Society

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.

Tomorrow's Election for Wisconsin Supreme Court includes National Money for Democratic Candidate

Democrats "aim to turn a race for state Supreme Court into the next nationalized race," according to Politico. President Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, is backing Rebecca Dallet, a Milwaukee County circuit court judge. The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, according to Politico,  has invested $140,000 in a digital ad program promoting Dallet, whose opponent is Judge Michael Screnock.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports on the race's final debate 

Federal Judicial Confirmation Votes Getting Closer

Senate confirmation votes on federal judges are getting closer over the last few decades reports John Gramlich for the Pew Research Center.

Ohio Supreme Court Appointment Makes Court All Republican

Ohio Gov. John Kasich named Judge Mary DeGenaro to complete the 11 months left in the term of  Justice William O’Neill, a Democrat, who is running for governor.

According to the Toledo Blade, this will mean each member of the Ohio Supreme Court is a Republican.

The Case for Partisan Judicial Elections

Professor Chris Bonneau of the University of Pittsburgh ably makes the case for partisan judicial elections.

Judicial Election Campaign Funding

Who Pays for Judicial Races? The Politics of Judicial Elections is a report by Alicia Bannon of the Brennan Center for Justice. The report includes statistics on judicial campaign finance and is written from the Brennan Center's progressive perspective that opposes judicial elections.

"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.

"Blue Slip" Power to Stop Judge Nominees Weakens

The "blue slip" tradition allows a home-state senator to stop a president's nominee for the federal bench by the senator refusing to return a sheet of paper, known as a blue slip, to the Judiciary Committee.

Nevertheless, current Judiciary Chair Grassley said from the Senate floor “the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for two circuit court nominees, each of whom has one home state senator who has not returned a blue slip containing a positive endorsement.” He has scheduled Nov. 29 hearings for David Stras, Trump’s nomination to be an appellate judge on the 8th Circuit, and for Kyle Duncan, nominated to serve the 5th Circuit.

According to the Hill, “A blue slip policy allowing a single senator to block a nominee from even receiving Committee consideration is a more extreme example of a counter-majoritarian practice,” said a memo released earlier this month by Grassley’s staff.

Politico quotes Grassley: “The Democrats seriously regret that they abolished the filibuster, as I warned them they would, but they can’t expect to use the blue slip courtesy in its place. That’s not what the blue slip is meant for.”

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.

US Senate to End "Blue Slips" Blocking Judicial Nominees?

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly said that a federal judicial nominee's home-state senators will no longer be able to use “blue slips” to deny a nominee a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and vote on confirmation.

Hat tip to law professor Rick Hasen who calls this a "a serious escalation in the judicial wars."

Proposal to End Elections of Illinois Appellate and Supreme Court Justices

Peter Alexander and George M. Vineyard argue for what they call "merit selection."

The abstract says:

"The authors’ thesis is that voters either are so uninformed or have been so misled about what Illinois appellate and supreme court justices do that the voters are not in the best position to select justices to the two reviewing courts. To support their analysis, the authors conducted a survey of Illinois registered voters to determine exactly what they know about the qualifications and job duties of Illinois' highest two courts."