Is the judiciary too politicized in NC? Here’s what Democrats and Republicans think

I’m Avi Bajpai, and this is the weekly Under the Dome newsletter. To subscribe, go to newsobserver.com/newsletters.

Starting in 1998, North Carolina moved away from partisan judicial elections and began to remove the party affiliation of judges from the ballot.

By 2015, the experiment with nonpartisan judicial races was beginning to end. In 2016, the General Assembly moved to restore partisan elections for all appellate races, and in 2017, lawmakers decided to extend partisan elections to district and superior court races as well, according to a history of North Carolina judicial elections compiled by former UNC School of Government professor Michael Crowell.

The return to partisan elections, in the view of Rep. Joe John and other Democratic lawmakers who filed a bill last week that would see the state go back to nonpartisan races, has been a regression.

John, a former district and superior court judge who served on the N.C. Court of Appeals for eight years, has filed similar legislation in past years, too, since the state reverted to partisan elections. It’s never been taken up in the Republican-controlled legislature, but John and other Democrats continue to introduce the bill, citing what they say is a need to remove party affiliation from the election of judges.

“Simply put, rank political partisanship, plunging our judges into the muck and mire of partisan political campaigns, is the very antithesis of what we all expect in a judge: fairness, impartiality, and a dedicated and determined adherence to the law,” John said during a press conference Wednesday.

Rep. Marcia Morey of Durham, another bill sponsor who served as a district court judge for several years before serving in the House, said the bill was about “a fair judiciary.” She said that returning to a system in which judges run in elections affiliated with a party has “created a political monster.”

The former judges and current lawmakers cited two recent developments as concerning examples of the judiciary’s unhealthy politicization: the newly elected Republican majority on the state Supreme Court deciding to rehear two important voting rights cases that the outgoing Democratic majority had already ruled on in December; and potential changes the high court is reportedly considering that could take away power from the Court of Appeals.

“If a party label tells you how a judge will rule, that is the opposite of being fair and impartial,” Morey said. “However, now, cases that go to the Supreme Court of North Carolina — most people can bet the outcome, what it will be, based on the partisanship.”

The view from the other side of the aisle

It’s not exactly surprising that Democrats and Republicans see this issue differently.

They identify different signs of politicization of the courts. While Democrats point to the Supreme Court’s decision to rehear the gerrymandering and voter ID cases, for example, GOP House Speaker Tim Moore says that the same court’s decision, under a Democratic majority, to strike down the voter ID law that North Carolinians approved as a ballot measure, is what is alarming.

Asked about the push by Democrats to reinstate nonpartisan judicial elections, Moore told reporters after Wednesday’s House session that he thought the Supreme Court’s previous majority “was absolutely recklessly political.”

“They were putting their political views, not only above what a General Assembly did or what the law is, they put it above the state constitution,” Moore said. “Just don’t forget, that prior Supreme Court had the gall to go and tell the voters of this state who approved a constitutional amendment — something that was in the constitution, right — that it was unconstitutional.”

Moore also disputed the notion that noting a judge’s political affiliation on the ballot was a bad thing.

“By putting the partisan label there with the candidate, what are you doing? You’re giving the voter more information about that person. That’s all you’re doing. You’re being more transparent,” Moore said. “The voter doesn’t have to go and search a database or look and try to find out; that voter goes to the polls with the information, knowing whether that candidate is a Republican or Democrat.”

“To me, that seems a fundamentally positive thing,” he added.

More stories from the team

▪ “NC House approves Medicaid expansion bill, moving debate to Senate.” The House passed a Medicaid expansion bill with broad, bipartisan support this week, Luciana Perez Uribe Guinassi reports. The question now is whether House and Senate GOP leaders can work through the differences that appear to remain between them on what a final bill should look like.

▪ “One vote short of supermajority, NC House GOP passes rules making veto overrides easier.” House Republicans approved permanent rules for their body, and they granted Democrats a slight concession on when veto override votes can be held, giving them some notice rather no notice, as was originally proposed, Dawn Vaughan reported.

▪ “Officials believe NC Auditor Beth Wood made personal use of state car, records show.” State Auditor Beth Wood was warned by officials in charge of the state motor fleet earlier this month that her use of another state car assigned to her office, following her December hit-and-run crash, was not allowed under agency regulations. Officials also said they believed Wood may have driven the car for personal use, I reported.

Thanks for reading. See you next week. In the meantime, tune into our stories, our tweets and our Under the Dome podcast for more developments.

— By Avi Bajpai, reporter for The News & Observer. Email me at abajpai@newsobserver.com.