May 24, 2002
Poll Points Way for Judicial Campaign Reform
By J. Barlow Herget
RALEIGH - When I give talks about government, I like to tell the story about former Rep. George Miller, D-Durham and Gov. Jim Hunt’s Energy Conservation Act. The story reveals, I believe, the American genius for government. It’s a genius that might be employed today in changing the tawdry election of judges in North Carolina.
Miller was ushering the energy bill through the House in 1977, and I was the Administration’s liaison for the bill. The bill was in response to the severe energy crisis of the 1976-77 winter, and there was popular support for the Governor’s bill. We had the votes.
Yet Miller, with me tagging along like an apprentice, sat down with one of the few opponents to go over the representative’s objections. I thought it a waste of time and the man’s complaints were mostly uninformed. But Miller heard him out and made some minor changes at his request.
Afterwards, when I asked Miller why he bothered with such a bonehead, he replied, "That fellow represents about 46,000 citizens and they deserve to be heard. He may still vote against us, but he won’t fight us because we listened to him and made some compromises."
Miller, of course, was right. It was "practical politics" at its best and a lesson in compromising to get something better than what we had.
A recent poll by the North Carolina Center for Voter Education offers some interesting information and an opportunity for the legislature and Governor Easley to make progressive changes to the current system of selecting state judges.
First, the survey of 600 likely voters found that a large majority, 84 percent, are concerned about how judges raise money for their elections. Currently (and this is not just in North Carolina) lawyers are some of the biggest contributors in judicial elections.
Furthermore, 74 percent of those surveyed believe that campaign contributions in judicial elections influence judicial decisions. And 85 percent are concerned about the escalating costs of North Carolina’s judicial elections; the race for Chief Justice in the 2000 Election, for example, cost over $1 million.
Worse, a majority of the people polled believe there are two systems of justice in North Carolina: one for the rich and powerful and one for the rest of us. Says Chris Heagarty, executive director of the Center: "Even though North Carolina has had a remarkably scandal-free judiciary, the public is highly suspicious of the potential for corruption."
Despite these concerns about the cost of judicial campaigns and the unseemly financing of such elections, citizens want to elect judges. By an 81 to 15 percent margin in the NCCVE poll, respondents preferred the election of judges over appointment.
Which brings us to an opportunity to apply our American genius. The poll found that citizens do favor some changes in the current election system. For example, a very large majority, 89 percent, like the idea of non-partisan elections for judges. And more interesting, there is strong support for some level of public financing for judicial candidates running for the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to help remove the awkward appearance of lawyers giving to judges they will later appear in front of in the courtroom.
The support for these ideas crosses partisan and racial lines; Democrats and Republicans as well as whites and blacks favor these changes by substantial majorities. Plus, they want changes before the next election.
Given the poll’s figures showing broad public support for some change, the General Assembly should take heed. Sen. Wib Gulley, D-Durham, and Sen. Allen Wellons, D-Johnston, sponsored a bill (SB 1054) last session that has been adopted in the Senate. It would make appellate judicial races non-partisan, and it would offer a modest public financing system plus publication of a voter guide about the candidates. The House, in the General Assembly’s short session, could do the same and send it to Governor Easley for his signature.
The proposal is a compromise that will not cure all judicial campaign financing ailments. I am reminded of President Franklin Roosevelt’s admonition for such situations: "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." The poll shows it’s time to try judicial reform.
J. Barlow Herget is a former member of the Raleigh City Council and has been a consultant in several statewide judicial campaigns.
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200