No, Democrats didn’t pack the court in 2000

by | Dec 8, 2016 | Editor's Blog | 13 comments

Republicans in North Carolina like to justify their excesses by saying “Democrats did it, too.” Not only is that a lame excuse, but it’s usually false. For instance, Republicans claim Democrats gerrymandered before they did. That may be true, but Republicans took it to the extreme. Democrats never had veto proof majorities or 75% of the Congressional seats.

Now, Republicans seem poised to pack the North Carolina Supreme Court to offset Democrat Mike Morgan’s election to the Court. With his victory in November, Democrats hold a 4-3 advantage on the ostensibly nonpartisan court. The constitution says that the legislature can add up to nine justices. When the legislature goes into special session to provide hurricane relief next week, Republicans could add the seats and let Pat McCrory fill them before he leaves, giving the GOP a 5-4 advantage on the court.

Democrats are calling foul. Republicans, though, keep saying that Democrats packed the court in 2000. That’s not true. Democrats created three new seats on the Court of Appeals in the short session of 2000, not the Supreme Court. The seats were added because the court had seen a 30% increase in its caseload in just two years and the state was growing rapidly. They were also added before the election of 2000, not after it. There was a controversy but it wasn’t around whether the increase was needed. The dispute was whether the new justices would have to stand for election in the next election, like the constitution stipulates, or could serve until 2004 like the bill stated. The court decided that they had to run on 2002, the next election cycle.

In contrast, the Supreme Court’s caseload has gone down, not up, so that’s no reason to add new judges. A commission established by the Republican Chief Justice Mark Martin in 2015 to review the needs of the court has issued a statement saying the court doesn’t need more justices. Appointing two new justices now would be little more than a naked power grab.

The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals operate differently. The Supreme Court acts as a single body so partisan make up is relevant. The Court of Appeals never acts as a single body. They meet in three judge panels. So, comparing additional supreme court seats to appellate court seats is the epitome of false equivalency.

No, the Democrats didn’t pack the court in the 2000. Republicans who claim they did are not telling the truth. They’re just trying to justify their authoritarian instincts.

Republican legislators should be wary about this type of overreach. Because of their gerrymandering, 2017 is an election year. Redistricting for the third time in five years is already enough to remind voters that the GOP is rigging the system. Stealing the Supreme Court will certainly keep the Democratic base engaged for the rest of the year. In an election that will likely hinge on turnout, that’s not what Republicans want to do.

13 Comments

  1. jt ham

    Progressive wing…..your party loves criminals…John Edwards, Bev Purdue Jim Black and Mike Easley, these are examples of what Dems do when they are in power. I guess its an art form as well to bribe someone by giving cash in the bathroom of a restaurant. Dems CAN NOT try to take a high road, Republicans have the majority BECAUSE of Democrat Crooks.

    Let them pack the court if its legal for them to do it. Elections mean something, and Ray cooper hehe is a lame duck on day 1.

    • Progressive Wing

      And not a single thing that those former Dems officials did changed the formal structure of any of the three branches of state government. But the NCGOP’s packing of the court would do so.

      And, BTW, as it turned out, McCrory was just plain LAME from Day 1 of his only term. Just sayin’…..

      • jt ham

        Progressive stoop,

        So they did not change the formal structure of the three branches of government then its ok? Comment is as stupid as a stick.
        Question is”Packing the court legal”
        Question, is paying off someone in a bathroom so they will change their party affiliation legal? And….No its dirty under table politics that DID change the majorities, which is a huge change.

        I stand by my comment. Dems cant take the high road. Furthermore, as long as you choose and continue to blindly support stoops like the criminals of Jim Black, Jon Edwards and yes even the Hillary Clinton clan, putting the party over all else, then you will continue to lose. Enjoy your “Ray” Cooper victory, its the only one you have. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

  2. Dallas Woodhouse

    It was done in 1998

    and the democrats did have a 35-15 advantage in the state senate in the 90’s

    • Progressive Wing

      Thanks, Mr Woodhouse, for the subtle indicator that the NCGOP is indeed considering this court-packing move.

      Your party continues to turn heavy-handed state rule, uber-partisanship, and legislative mischief into art forms.

    • Norma Munn

      Mr. Woodhouse, specifically what was done in 1998? Do you mean number of NC Supreme Court justices was changed and that article is wrong? Or are you referring to the districts for state elections? I am willing to learn, but clarity is required.

      Also, a veto proof majority in one house of the legislature is not the same as a lock on both houses.

    • Thomas Mills

      No, it wasn’t done in 1998. And no, the Democrats never had a 35-15 advantage in the Senate in the 1990s.

    • Jay Gervasi

      Mr. Woodhouse,

      The timing of the increase in the Court of Appeals is not the important part. The huge difference is that the prior increase was to the Court of Appeals. The three reasons that matters are 1) the one in the article, which is that the Court of Appeals sits in panels of three, so adding judges doesn’t confer the same amount of direct partisan advantage, 2) the Court of Appeals isn’t the ultimate authority in politically loaded issues, like the Supreme Court is, so “packing” the Court of Appeals doesn’t accomplish the goal of erasing the check and balance of the judiciary, because any decision can be reversed by the Supreme Court, and 3) the obvious difference in the integrity of the motivation: the Court of Appeals was increased to handle problems with workload, while increasing the Supreme Court would be entirely, and inappropriately, political.

      As for your claim that there was never anything to worry about, that would have been easier to see, if legislative leadership hadn’t been deliberately cagey about it, leading into the special session. Further, I’m not sure that’s true. There were a lot of calls, letters, and articles, from a lot of people, opposing the idea of packing the Court, mostly pointing out that it would have looked terrible. It is fair to suspect that leadership originally entertained the idea, perhaps as recently as last week, and decided not to do it, out of fear of political repercussions.

  3. Kevin Farmer

    Thank you, Thomas, for this very practical and useful piece of information.

  4. HunterC

    ” They were also added before the election of 2000, not after it. ”

    This is a very important point, perhaps the most salient point.

    • TbeT

      Joshua: If we have learned anything about how the NCGOP operates since 2010, it’s this: nothing they say should be believed, especially with regard to any upcoming legislation.

      They are best known for special session mischief, introduction of bills on short notice or at odd hours, giving short shrift to committee hearings on bills and to proposed bill amendments, and doing whatever it takes to embed their ideology into our government operations and structure.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!