Politics in the courtroom

by Tom Campbell, Executive Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, April 16, 2015.

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that if we discuss a problem long enough we can come up with a solution? It doesn’t work that way with public policy issues, especially in the selection of judges.

For more than twenty years voters have complained they didn’t know the candidates in judicial elections, especially those on the Appellate level. Why not? Unless you have business with them these judges (or aspiring candidates) are not well known. But information about them is available. The North Carolina Center for Voter Education and even our own State Board of Elections publishes a guide each election cycle giving the backgrounds on judicial candidates. If a voter really cares to know more about the candidates it is free and available.

What problem are we attempting to solve? If it is to make sure we select the most qualified and best judges the current solution offered by the NC House Election Committee makes even less sense than the current system. The House committee concluded people will know more and we will get better judges if we return to the days of partisan judicial elections, when candidates had a Republican or Democratic designation beside their name.

Do Republicans have some divine judgment that Democrats don’t possess? Are Democrats imbued with Solomon-like wisdom unavailable to Republicans? When it comes to judges it should not matter whether someone is a Democrat or Republican, a liberal or a conservative. What should matter is whether or not they can understand and interpret the law, follow the constitution and administer justice fairly and evenly.

Study after study has pointed out that our current system for selecting judges is flawed. Only a few voters have a clue about the judicial candidates on the ballot. And that same problem existed when we did have party affiliations identified. Elections at the Appellate Court level have become convoluted, costly, often involve out-of-state third parties who are trying to manipulate the outcomes and do little to inform voters. Our laws prevent candidates from sounding off on current issues or declaring how they might rule on specific cases. We tried public funding for these campaigns but it still didn’t help us know more about the candidates.

Polls are clear in saying the public is opposed to giving up the right to vote even when voters don’t take the time to know for whom they are voting. The concept of merit selection of judges makes some sense but depends on who is judging who has merit.

There doesn’t seem to be a perfect system so we suggest our state settle on a modified merit selection plan with the understanding that if it doesn’t work we will go back to what we have now or try something else. Certainly we should involve the State Bar, Trial Lawyers, District Attorneys and law enforcement officials in helping to come up with a better plan.

The verdict is in. The current system isn’t serving us well and we are increasingly convinced that electing appellate judges isn’t the best way to get the best judges. Partisan judicial elections only make them more political. We should take politics out of the courtroom as much as possible in order to assure better jurisprudence.