For immediate release.
March 26, 2002
Contact: Jesse Rutledge, N.C. Center for Voter Education,
(919) 839-1200
Center Joins Effort to Protect Judicial Independence in Critical U.S. Supreme Court Case
RALEIGH – In a key test for the future of fair and impartial courts, the United States Supreme Court hears arguments today in the case of Republican Party of Minnesota vs. Kelly.
To show its support for fair and impartial courts, the North Carolina Center for Voter Education has signed on as supporter of an amicus brief submitted by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York School of Law, which defends the State of Minnesota’s judicial code. Other supporters include the American Bar Association, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Attorneys General of eight states.
At issue is the State of Minnesota’s Code of Judicial Code of Conduct, and in particular its “Announce” clause. As interpreted by that state’s Supreme Court, the announce clause means that a candidate in a judicial election shall “not announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues” that are likely to come before the candidate if elected to the bench. Opponents of this provision charge that the announce clause violates the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment.
“As campaign costs rise and partisan politics play a more overt role in the judicial process, it would be tragic if the Supreme Court were to tell these candidates ‘you’ve got to campaign as if you are a politician,'” said Chris Heagarty, executive director of the Center for Voter Education. Such codes, Heagarty argued, is a proper way to ensure that judges apply the law fairly and impartially.
“A judge may have strong personal feelings about an issue, but their decisions must be based on what the written law says, not what they think it should say. In order to be fair and impartial, judges should not promise how they would rule on a case before they hear the evidence. Having candidates make promises about how they would rule ahead of time is misleading and is the fastest way to cut the legs out from under our system of independent courts,” Heagarty continued.
North Carolina is one of five states that elects judges but does not have an announce clause in its judicial ethics code. The Center for Voter Education supports the idea that judicial candidates must remain impartial and worries that if Minnesota’s code is overturned it could change the future tone and conduct of judicial elections across the country, including in North Carolina.
Heagarty warned that, while the code may seem restrictive, in reality it helps to preserve judicial independence. If candidates for judicial offices were encouraged to campaign on hot-button issues like abortion, gun control or tort reform, interest groups would begin “judge shopping” -- that is, sending political and financial support to a candidate they perceived as behold to their particular political philosophy, rather than the rule of law. Further, voters could be confused or misled when they are drawn to support candidates based on campaign slogans, then wonder why a judge ruled a different way.
A recent national survey of 2,428 sitting state judges found that 55 percent believe the tone and conduct of judicial elections has worsened in the past five years, and 46 percent say they are under pressure to raise campaign money for elections. The survey was conducted by the Justice at Stake campaign, a national nonprofit group headquartered in Washington, D.C.
The Center for Voter Education is working to improve the judicial selection process in North Carolina. At the moment, the Center is supporting a series of reforms, including public financing for appellate-level court candidates, a reduction in contribution limits to these candidates, nonpartisan elections at the appellate-level and increased public education through the distribution of voters’ guides.
More information about the Center and its work on judicial campaign reform is available on its website, www.ncvotered.com.
###
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200