• Home
• Voting & Democracy
  • Go Vote
  • N.C. Voter Guide
  • VoterRadio.com
• Research & Publications
  • Follow the Money
  • NCCVE Research
• Multimedia
  • The Voter Update Podcast
• For the Media
  • News Releases
  • Media Advisories
  • Contact NCCVE
• About Us
  • Board of Directors
  • Staff
  • Contribute to NCCVE
  • Contact Us
• Search

Jan. 8, 2007

They Say Justice is Blind

By Chris Heagarty

RALEIGH - They say justice is blind, but does that mean it has to be blind to irony, too?

Recently, after the host of a radio program interviewed a distinguished senior judge running for the state Supreme Court, the judge said he discovered that the host had made a contribution to one of the other candidates, and he questioned whether the host was biased and if he’d get a fair interview.

That is, he expected the host to be fair and impartial, but because the host had made a campaign contribution, the judge doubted the host could be.

Is this the black-robed judge calling the kettle black? Here was a judge who had raised over $50,000 himself, mostly from lawyers, and he had the nerve to question the fairness and impartiality of the host? If people giving a contribution should be questioned about their fairness, then what about the person receiving such contributions?

Of course, to suggest that a judge could be swayed by money is like accusing him of accepting a bribe, of being dishonest and failing in his oath of office. Yet, when it was someone else, it was the first conclusion the judge drew. Why was that?

Because it is natural to assume that money might influence someone’s opinion, even though this can undermine public confidence in the credibility of a judge and the courts. Who would believe they were getting a fair trial if they knew that the attorney on the other side of the courtroom had given the judge, or a committee supporting the judge, hundreds or thousands of dollars?

Whether or not judges are insulted, the voters of North Carolina do not like the idea of judges raising lots of money from people who appear before them in court -- be it from lawyers, or from people suing or being sued.

The problem is that we don’t want our judges to be politicians, but we require them to act like politicians to run for office -- raising the money they need for expensive campaigns and consultants -- but at the same time we try to hold judges to a higher standard than other politicians, free of any appearance of conflicts of interest.

State legislators have attempted to fix this paradox by creating the Public Campaign Fund. Candidates for the state’s Supreme Court and Court of Appeals can agree to turn down special-interest money and big donations, and limit their campaign spending, and be rewarded with matching funds from the Public Campaign Fund. This is a pool of public money that judges can use to run their campaigns without any strings attached to donors.

The Public Campaign Fund is supported mostly through a check-off box on your state income tax form. Checking the box will mean that $3 of the taxes you’ve paid will go into the fund to provide these matching funds and to print a nonpartisan state voter guide, with information about all of the judges. Additional money in the fund comes from a share of attorney’s license fees. Checking the box doesn’t increase or decrease your taxes, it just directs tax money that’s already been collected.

Supporting the Public Campaign Fund is a good step toward reducing private money in judicial elections, and therefore the potential conflicts created by it.

However, political parties and interest groups continue to look for loopholes in election laws, to funnel money into these races and try to buy a “judicial philosophy” of their choosing.

Thus it is time to ask ourselves, do we really want to keep selecting judges like we select other politicians? Or should we have a better way to screen them, so as to keep political activists and unqualified candidates off the bench?

Other states are forming judicial screening committees to filter out activist candidates, with voters then deciding whether to keep them as judges or dismiss them. A screening process in North Carolina would help eliminate candidates with agendas or conflicts of interest.

Honestly, do you really know anything about the candidates for judge when you cast your ballot? Just because justice is blind, doesn’t mean we should pick candidates blindly.

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.