Keep him or not
Published December 4, 2015
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, December 4, 2015.
N.C. Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds of Greensboro won re-election in 2008 with 51 percent of the vote against Wake Forest University law professor Suzanne Reynolds. He’ll likely have an easier time in 2016 since no one can run against him.
The state legislature this year established retention elections for sitting justices of the N.C. Supreme Court. Most voters probably missed the brief debate.
The election will amount to one question on the ballot: whether to retain the justice for another eight-year term or remove him. If voters choose to remove him, the governor will appoint a replacement to serve for two years, when a traditional election would be held. Edmunds is the only justice up for election next year.
In theory, the retention election system is sound. A justice first must be elected against an opponent. After that, he should be removed only if voters find some fault in his performance. Nineteen other states use retention elections, and usually they don’t attract as much special-interest money during campaigns. The N.C. Bar Association endorsed the change.
Yet, as usual, the Republican-led legislature had a partisan motive. Although the court is officially nonpartisan, Edmunds is a Republican and the court has a 4-3 majority of Republican justices. Even if Edmunds is voted out, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory could appoint another Republican to the court. So, the GOP majority is guaranteed to continue at least until 2018.
The legislature also added to a confusing mixture of election processes for state courts. Each level has a different way of electing judges. In Guilford County, for example, District Court judges are elected countywide but Superior Court judges are elected in districts. They are nonpartisan. State Court of Appeals judges are chosen in contested nonpartisan elections, but candidates’ party affiliations will appear on the ballot. No party label will be listed with Edmunds’ name in his retention election.
There’s another problem. The change to retention elections required a state constitutional amendment, a lawsuit filed Monday contends.
One of the plaintiffs, Sabra Faires, is a Raleigh attorney with 30 years’ experience who says she is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court but is denied the chance to run. Indeed she is. Under the new setup, she might not have an opportunity to run for many years, until a justice is voted out or retires.
Furthermore, voters are denied the chance to choose a new justice if they don’t want to retain Edmunds. The constitution requires that justices shall be elected by the voters of the state. The governor, not the voters, would choose someone to replace Edmunds under the new method.
The lawsuit will be contested, and the courts will decide which side is right. But the legislature invited a legal challenge by making this change in such a clumsy way. It should undertake comprehensive judicial reform rather than move pieces around in an inconsistent fashion for partisan reasons. In this case, a proposed constitutional amendment, put to a vote of the people, would have allowed a needed statewide discussion on the best way to choose Supreme Court judges.
