Judging themselves

Editorial by Greensboro News and Record, August 2, 2013.

Back in April, two state representatives who are attorneys in private life introduced a little-noticed bill. It aimed to make it easier for illegitimate children to inherit from a parent. Within a couple of weeks, this helpful proposal won unanimous approval in the House.

More than three months later, on the last day of the legislative session, the same bill — or at least carrying the same bill number, H 652 — returned to the House floor for final consent.

By then, however, it was an entirely different creature. The illegitimate children were gone. In their place was a new disciplinary process for judges — one with less transparency and a provision that will let the N.C. Supreme Court deal with misconduct complaints against its own members.

This version raised objections from both Chief Justice Sarah Parker and Chief Court of Appeals Judge John Martin. It passed by a much-closer vote of 54-47, with 11 Republicans joining 36 Democrats in opposing it. All the yes votes were cast by Republicans.

The bill was transformed in the Senate and rejected, 22-12, in its initial vote July 19. Most senators apparently recognized its flaws. But that didn’t kill it. When it was brought up again a few days later, many of the no votes had flipped, and it passed, 28-14. Behind-the-scenes lobbying carried the day. By whom?

“My understanding is that four justices of the Supreme Court want this to pass,” Rep. Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, told colleagues during House debate.

No justices said so publicly. Parker said just the opposite, as did Martin, who also serves as chairman of the state’s Judicial Standards Commission.

Under existing procedures, this commission — whose members are judges, attorneys and citizens — investigates complaints against sitting judges and, if warranted, recommends final disciplinary action to the Supreme Court.

The exception is when the complaint is made against a Supreme Court justice. Then the final arbiter is a panel of six senior judges on the Court of Appeals. That was just changed to give that power to the Supreme Court itself.

It’s a serious mistake. The Supreme Court, which has only seven justices, should not sit in judgment over its own members. Martin noted that the State Ethics Commission “has suggested that it would be inappropriate for me, as chairman of the commission, to participate in any matter involving allegations of misconduct against a fellow Court of Appeals judge.” It’s no different for Supreme Court justices. It’s better to give that responsibility to a different group of jurists.

The bill also turns commission hearings, which are open to the public under current rules, to closed-door sessions. In fact, all complaints, recommendations and other documents would be confidential until actual disciplinary action is taken.

If that were the process followed in a court of law, no one would know who was charged with what offenses until the accused was found guilty. That would not be acceptable there, and it should not be acceptable when judges themselves are under investigation. This bill treats justice like an illegitimate orphan.