Oct. 7, 2002
A New Day for Judicial Elections
By J. Barlow Herget
RALEIGH - The whole world may not be watching, but America’s lawyers and judges are. They’re watching North Carolina’s judicial election reform bill, Senate Bill 1054 (the Judicial Campaign Reform Act) which recently received the legislative stamp of approval.
At a recent American Bar Association (ABA) commission meeting in Philadelphia, I was peppered with questions about the reform plan. The interest is justified because the proposal makes significant changes in the future election of judges.
I was in Philadelphia to attend the ABA’s Commission on the 21st Century Judiciary. The Commission included former Oregon Gov. Barbara Roberts, the current Chief Justices of Texas, Thomas Phillips, and Massachusetts, Margaret Marshall, former Federal Circuit Judge Abner Mikva and former FBI Director and Federal Judge William S. Sessions. (North Carolina’s own Julius Chambers, former chancellor of North Carolina Central University, is also a member.)
New ABA President and Raleigh lawyer A. P. Carlton has made judicial elections a special interest of his term, and the questions asked by ABA commissioners are worth repeating -- along with the answers -- for readers here in North Carolina.
What are the major changes? SB 1054 does four big things:
* One, candidates who run for the Supreme and Appeals courts will run as nonpartisan applicants.
* Two, candidates who agree to spending limits may qualify for public campaign funds. It is a voluntary program; candidates don’t have to participate and may continue to raise as much money as possible.
* Three, the state Board of Elections will publish and distribute a voter guides for the primary and general elections that will describe the candidates in their own words. The guides will be similar to those of other states such as Oregon and Washington.
* Four, the amount of money you can give judicial candidates for the Supreme and Appeals courts is reduced from $4,000 to $1,000 per election. (Family members may give up to $2,000.)
The new system begins with the 2004 judicial elections.
These changes came after years of discussion and debate about the current system. North Carolinians, like the ABA commissioners, are deeply concerned about the increasing amounts of money candidates spent on judicial elections and the influence such money is perceived to command. The North Carolina Center for Voter Education documented these sentiments in a survey earlier this year.
It showed that a huge majority, 84 percent, worry that lawyers are often the big givers in judicial fund raising. And a similarly large majority, 78 percent, believe contributions influence judicial decisions.
These perceptions are grounded in information collected by "DataNet," a publication of the Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In 1990, according to "DataNet," the total spending (in 2002 dollars) for the chief justice campaign by Democratic and Republican candidates was $130,287. Ten years later, in 2000, spending was $1.19 million.
The ABA also is bothered by the negative tone of current judicial elections. Campaign ads elsewhere feature attack ads that picture candidates as sleazy, corrupt politicians selling justice. Such campaign images hardly promote a fair and impartial judiciary.
Realistically, you cannot take politics out of our judicial system nor should you. SB 1054, however, aims to limit the corrosive effect of partisan politics and to reduce the influence of special interest money in judicial elections.
Of interest to the ABA is how North Carolina came to SB 1054. The state had considered other changes, namely merit selection combined with retention elections (The Missouri Plan). Pennsylvania is looking at such a system now, and supporters have been cheered by endorsements from Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates this year.
Former North Carolina Chief Justice Burley Mitchell, no academic dreamer, led the effort for merit selection during the 1990s but he found little support among other political leaders. Indeed, the 2002 NCCVE poll reported that 81 percent of North Carolina voters prefer election of judges over appointment.
Thus, the Judicial Campaign Reform Act is a modest compromise. Voters already take part in nonpartisan races for Superior Court and District Court candidates; appellate court races will be no different. Results elsewhere indicate that nonpartisan judicial elections cost less, by almost a third.
The option of public financing offers candidates a chance to say "no" to special interest fund raising. It is a very new concept for North Carolinians, but what better elected office to start with than judge?
Barlow Herget is a writer and former member of the Raleigh City Council who has worked in several judicial campaigns.
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200