There's a better way to choose our judges

Editorial by Fayetteville Observer, December 11, 2017.

There is growing concern across North Carolina about the increasing politicization of our judiciary. The politicians running our General Assembly have undone longstanding reforms that helped our judges stand above politics and keep our criminal justice system as politically unbiased as possible. Lawmakers have taken the state back to an earlier time when judges ran as partisans and their political affiliation was listed on the ballot. From the state Supreme Court down to local district court positions, judgeships have been plunged deeper into politics.

Worse, lawmakers have even penalized those judges who have left political parties and registered as unaffiliated voters. They are required to collect signatures on petitions in order to qualify for the ballot, while their party-enrolled colleagues need only provide their own signature to get on the ballot. This will affect several Cumberland County judges in upcoming elections.

Legislators have also begun an effort to redraw judicial districts, and initial proposals make it clear that the intent is to elect more Republican judges, rather than to simply create districts that fairly represent the population the judges serve. The redistricting architects appear to consider the judiciary just another political playground, rather than the cornerstone of a fair and unbiased legal system. And some legislation filed this year would also cut judicial terms of four and eight years down to two, which means that like our lawmakers, judges would be forced to stay in a campaigning and fundraising mindset for at least half of their term in office. That would pretty much guarantee that many judges would always have one eye on the next election as they make decisions from the bench. We doubt that’s the kind of judicial system the people of North Carolina really want.

It’s definitely not the kind of judiciary that Mark Martin wants. The Republican chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court has spoken out against the politicization of the state judicial system. He and Gov. Roy Cooper both oppose shorter terms for judges. And Martin has suggested several times this year that it may be time to change the way we choose judges, joining the lawyers and legal experts who have for decades urged the state to adopt the “merit selection” sort of system that many other states use. A special committee in the state Senate is looking into some proposals for change and recently heard a presentation by the Brennan Center for Justice, based at the New York University School of Law. The Brennan scholars back a system in which a nominating commission would vet candidates for judicial vacancies. It’s members would include lawyers and non-lawyers and would be chosen by the state’s elected leaders and legal groups. The commission would prepare a list of names from which the governor would be required to choose.

Brennan recommends lifetime tenure for judges, although that idea is likely to find opposition here, where there appears to be more interest in periodic retention elections in which voters would decide whether judges are performing well enough to remain in office. But Alicia Bannon, the Brennan Center’s senior counsel, says there is evidence that the need to run in elections, either partisan or retention, tends to influence judges’ legal decisions.

Martin Brinkley, dean of the UNC School of Law in Chapel Hill, told the Senate committee that he backs a plan similar to the way federal judges are chosen: nominations by the executive branch that are confirmed by the legislature.

Any of these methods of judicial selection are preferable to the direction we see the current system taking. While it’s probably not possible to completely shield the judiciary from political influence, we clearly need to back away from the politicization that is growing in the General Assembly of late. Justice can’t wear the blindfold of impartiality when politicians are screaming in her ear.

http://www.fayobserver.com/opinion/20171211/our-view-theres-better-way-to-choose-our-judges