A bill passed by the State Senate would change the way elections for the Supreme Court are conducted in North Carolina, implementing retention elections. Under the proposal, sitting justices would face an up-or-down vote from voters – no opponents or challengers. The bill would start retention elections in 2016.
That’s good news for Associate Justice Robert Edmunds, the only justice up for reelection next year. Voters give judges a lot of respect and typically will only vote to not retain them if they do something really bad, like issue an extremely unpopular ruling, or do whatever Dennis Hastert did.
Though retention elections very much favor incumbents, the present situation does not. Suffering from low name recognition, judges pretty much have to start from scratch every time they seek reelection. It doesn’t matter how long they’ve been in office; if they draw an opponent who can raise money and build strong name recognition, they might find themselves out of a job.
That’s the situation that confronted Justice Paul Newby back in 2012. Newby was seeking reelection to his seat on the Supreme Court and by all accounts had served ably. But his opponent, Sam Ervin III, benefited from having a very familiar name. In the end, Newby was saved by a catchy banjo ad.
The Newby/Ervin race saw a torrent of outside spending. Newby, a registered Republican, held on but the GOP was generally unsuccessful in the judiciary elections in 2014. It’s easy to think that GOP legislators have decided to kill two birds with one stone: by implementing retention elections, not only will they dramatically reduce the costs of judicial elections, but they’ll also be helping out Edmunds.
Most everybody wants money out of politics so that facet isn’t controversial. But the timing is. In a presidential year, Edmunds could very easily lose, something that long-term would threaten the GOP’s hold of the Supreme Court, which in turn would effect the legislature’s ability to implement its agenda and perhaps force redraws of the district maps. Implementing retention elections would probably put the kibosh on that. Sen. Josh Stein seized on the political angle of the bill, calling it the “Bob Edmunds Protection Act.”
So, in 2016 voters will have their say as to whether or not Justice Edmunds should continue serving. And what if, somehow, they give him the thumbs-down? In that case, Gov. McCrory would get to choose his replacement, and this justice would have to be approved by the voters in the next election.
The amount of money being spent on judicial elections in this state has gotten ridiculous. It’s good that the legislature is attempting to scale it back. But the partisan aspect and the likelihood that it will help the GOP keep the Supreme Court in their hands is notable. For Republican legislators, it’s a win-win situation.
John Wynne is the “conservative voice” at PoliticsNC, where he also provides polling analysis and commentary on legislative campaigns. When not writing about politics, he enjoys gardening and listening to opera. Contact: johncwynne@gmail.com.
“The fact that former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Daye O’Connor is advocating for retention elections adds to its credibility.”
No. Sandra Day O’Connor was part of the Republican power grab known as Bush vs. Gore in 2000. She has no credibility than any other partisan hack.
For once, I’ve found something I can agree with John Wynne about. Retention elections seem to be a sensible compromise between partisan judicial elections and life-time appointment of judges at the federal level. Any new vacancies would be filled by the governor and then be subject to a “yes or no” retention vote at the end of the term. It should neutralize much of the partisanship and influence of large-money donors. The fact that former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Daye O’Connor is advocating for retention elections adds to its credibility.
Once again, the NCGOP changing election rules to cling to power down the line. Extreme gerrymandering in 2011; messing with voter access/eligibility in 2013; and skewing local elections (that they would stand to lose) via redistricting of the Wake County school board and county commissioner races in 2015. And now this, which would either insure Edmunds’ re-election or the governor’s appointment of some other GOP/conservative judge.
When will the state’s electorate take notice that its voice in elections is being muffled and that the outcome of elections is being tampered with, in deliberate and self-serving fashion, by the GOP?
Judicial retention elections will save money but will give us worse judges than the present system gives us. Under the proposed plan if a person is not a judge (ok, “justice”) on the Supreme Court already he or she must be appointed by the governor to become a Supreme Court Justice. The governor might mean well but the governor is no more (or less) qualified than the average voter to pick a judge. We’d get better judges with a popular election than with a political appointment. For example, in Wake County Governor McCrory went against the Wake County Bar’s recommendation and appointed Charles Gilliam as District Court judge. Most people who worked in the courthouse agreed that Judge Gilliam did not do a particularly good job, probably because he had little or no prior experience in District Court. Maybe with time he would have developed into a better judge. In the general election the voting public chose Craig Croom over Charles Gilliam. Croom was a former District Court Judge who most attorneys agreed had done a good job in office. Judge Croom was also one of two people originally recommended by the Wake County Bar for this District Court judicial seat which Governor McCrory gave to Charles Gilliam. I was the other person recommended by the bar for that seat. The interesting thing is that the voting public went with a candidate (Craig Croom) that the lawyers in Wake County agreed was a good choice while the governor went with someone without that stamp of approval. We are better served with the popularly-elected person than the politically-appointed person.