Aug. 23, 2004
Special Supreme Court Election Poses Challenge for Campaign Fund
By J. Barlow Herget
RALEIGH - There’s good news and there’s bad news about a second seat on the state Supreme Court becoming vacant in time for the Nov. 2 election.
The good news is that six out of the eight people who have filed for the open position want to participate in the new publicly funded, nonpartisan campaign system.
The bad news is that there are six people who want to participate in the new system. If all qualify, there may not be enough money in the fund to finance their campaigns at the level anticipated by the act.
Fortunately, the State Board of Elections has rendered a Salomonic ruling that makes the best of a good situation.
It is a good situation because 13 of the 16 appellate judicial candidates running for office this year voluntarily signaled their desire to try North Carolina’s new campaign system. One of those candidates, former Appeals Court Judge Betsy McCrodden, explains why she has signed on: “The idea behind [the Judicial Campaign Reform Act] is to take judges out of fundraising as much as possible.”
Indeed, voters polled in the past by the N.C. Center for Voter Education have said loud and clear that they are not happy with the growing costs of judicial campaigns. They also are concerned that the individuals and special interests that help pay for these costs have too much influence on judicial decisions.
These sentiments propelled the legislature and Gov. Mike Easley to adopt the Judicial Reform Act in 2002. It is that law that established a publicly financed fund that will help candidates pay for their campaigns.
To date, there are five appellate court seats on the Nov. 2 ballot. Justice Sarah Parker faces Appeals Court Judge John M. Tyson for one of two Supreme Court positions. Each has qualified for public funding and will receive $201,775. They also have agreed to limit their spending.
There are three seats open on the Appeals Court, and all but one of the six candidates are participating in the new system. They each will receive about $138,000 from the fund.
These amounts, combined with the contributions that candidates must raise to qualify for public help, are realistic. McCrodden, for example, says she spent about $180,000 when she ran for the Court of Appeals before the 2002 reform.
The second Supreme Court seat became vacant when Justice Robert Orr resigned July 30 to accept a job as director of a new, conservative nonprofit group, the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law. (Had Orr waited until 60 days before the election, the governor would have appointed his successor. The successor would have held the office until the next general election in 2006 when he or she would face election for the position.)
And it’s a Louisiana style election: come one, come all; winner-take-all.
As noted, eight people have filed for the seat: McCrodden, attorneys James “Ronnie” Ansley, Rachel Lea Hunter, Marvin Schiller, Fred Morrison, Jr. and Paul Newby; Superior Court Judge Howard Manning, Jr., and Appeals Court Judge James Wynn, Jr., who had served previously on the Supreme Court.
And the one who has the most votes -- not a majority of the votes, not even 40 percent of the votes -- the one who has the most votes, wins. Period. (Chris Heagarty, executive director of NCCVE, observes that it is possible for a candidate to win with less than 13 percent of the vote!)
Until the Orr vacancy, the State Board of Elections had calculated that it had enough money to finance the seven candidates who had qualified for the program. With the sudden addition of six more candidates who want to participate, Board members wisely decided to first fully fund the candidates who had already qualified, then to set aside what they could for new candidates. What remains is enough to fully fund 2 candidates in the Orr seat, or all of them on a partial basis.
The Board then ruled that since it cannot fund the $201,000 normally distributed when there are only two candidates, all candidates who qualify will split this amount equally, and they would be permitted to raise the difference from additional amount on their own. Simply put, if there were four qualifying candidates -- instead of two -- each of them would get 50 percent of the amount they would have received, and could raise the rest on their own. Not as attractive as what other candidates get, but still a big help for most candidates getting into this race so late.
It’s a good decision because it still puts a limit on campaign spending and it offers a level playing field to participating candidates.
Gary Bartlett, director of the State Board of Elections, says the Board’s challenge now is to find extra money for a much needed, printed Voters Guide, one of the provisions in the act. He and his staff posted a guide for the July 20 Primary election on the Internet and will do so again for the general election. Such a guide costs about $725,000 to print and mail.
If you’re feeling generous, and I’m only half joking, send your checks to Bartlett made out to the N.C. Public Campaign Financing Fund, in care of the State Board of Elections in Raleigh.
Barlow Herget is a former Raleigh city councilman and writes the Follow the Money column for the N.C. Center for Voter Education.
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200