Sep. 1, 2006
How Court Races and Car Races Compare
By Chris Heagarty
RALEIGH - Are you ready for the big race after Labor Day?
Some people will assume I am talking about this year’s political campaigns, which wake up after a sleepy summer and charge to the finish. Others will assume I’m talking about the Chase for the Nextel Cup, these last races of NASCAR’s season to determine which of the top ten drivers will be this year’s Nextel Cup champion.
To many North Carolina citizens, NASCAR’s chase has a lot more significance than who wins on Election Day.
In our opinion research, voters tell us they are interested in the campaigns for various elected officials and that they want more information. Yet, when you really probe them about what they think, a lot of them find the political races a little boring.
So how can we take something that is very important to each and every citizen, like the election of our top judges, and make it something people are interested in? How do we take all the legal jargon about merit selection and tort reform and present it in such a way that people care? Does the average person, John Grisham readers excluded, even know what a “tort” is?
While not everyone follows motorsports, there are some interesting parallels between this year’s Chase for the Nextel Cup and the campaigns for our state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
Both NASCAR’s points race and the upcoming judicial races will feature a Mark Martin -- veteran race driver Mark Martin and Senior Associate Justice Mark Martin -- although the Mark Martin who drives the number six Ford Taurus is in danger of finishing way back and failing to qualify.
We can also use NASCAR as a useful way to explain other aspects of our judicial races. Do you know what the public campaign financing program for judges is? Do you know what restrictor-plate racing is?
Restrictor-plate racing is loved and hated by drivers and race fans. In restrictor plate races, a plate is installed to restrict the amount of oxygen in the carburetor, reducing horsepower.
The public campaign financing program is voluntary, but those who participate restrict the amount of large contributions and donations from political action committees (PACs) into their campaigns, thus reducing the share any one interest group or donor might have on a candidate’s total treasury.
In restrictor-plate racing, drivers can’t go as fast as possible, and have a capped speed. Candidates using the Public Campaign Fund can’t raise as much money as possible and have a cap on their spending.
Why on earth would anyone want to cap the top speed in a race? Why would anyone want to limit campaign spending?
Auto racing employs a lot of science that people who aren’t fans might miss. At the speeds the cars travel, aerodynamics and drag become huge issues. On certain tracks, cars stack up, unable to pass because of the resistance. They get stuck in the same order until someone makes a risky attempt to break out, which often leads to a crash.
On these tracks, the restrictor plates prevent the cars from hitting speeds that create that sort of resistance. The result is a lot more side-by-side racing. Now you’ve leveled the playing field and drivers have to use skill, not just speed, to win the race.
In judicial races, there is a different kind of drag: the worry that if judges take a lot of money from special interests that have cases in the court, this will pull the judge’s opinion one way or the other.
Most judges will deny that any campaign contribution would have an impact on their decisions, and accuse you of insulting the judiciary to even suggest it. Nevertheless, national polls show that a large number of judges, not just voters, are worried that these contributions might influence their fellow judges.
To avoid these problems, if candidates are restricted to accepting only small contributions, while taking no money from PACs, and receive most of their money in financial aid from a public matching fund, you also create a level playing field. Judicial candidates can then compete on who has the best legal skills, not just fundraising prowess, to win their race.
Both restrictor-plate racing and public campaign financing have their fans and their critics, but both also have a lot of undeniable benefits.
It may be that you have no interest in either NASCAR or the upcoming judicial elections, but hopefully you’ll take notice of the men and women running for judge. If we could spark the public’s interest in our judicial races at just a fraction of the attention given the Chase for the Nextel Cup, we’d have a much more informed electorate.
Chris Heagarty is the executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200