State needs constitutional changes, too
My column today:
Larry Sabato has a point:
"If we really want to make progress and achieve greater fairness as a society, it is time for elemental change. And we should start by looking at the Constitution, with the goal of holding a new Constitutional Convention."
The University of Virginia political science professor proposes 23 changes to the U.S. Constitution. He knows a lot more than I do, so I'm not going to address any of them.
Instead, I'd like to see a North Carolina constitutional convention with the goal of producing significant revisions to the basic law of our state. Here are some of my suggestions:
* Most importantly, North Carolina voters deserve the power of initiative and referendum and the ability to force recall elections.
Because its leaders serve special interests at the expense of the public, our legislature regularly bottles up potentially popular measures, such as a proposed constitutional amendment barring eminent domain when private property would be taken for use by other private parties. Many other states let voters petition for the right to vote on important issues, taking direct democratic action instead of letting power rest in the hands of the few.
Voters also should be allowed to petition for recall elections on the state level, as they can in cities like Greensboro.
* State legislative and congressional districts should be drawn by an independent panel rather than by the politicians themselves. When legislators create their own election districts, not surprisingly, they protect their own interests and the interests of their party. As a result, few legislative and congressional elections are truly competitive, and the politicians are not fully accountable to the people.
* Ballot access should be easier. Democrats and Republicans conspire to keep third parties and independent candidates off the ballot, limiting voters' choices. While there should be some threshold for ballot access, when close to 20 percent of registered voters are neither Democrats nor Republicans, qualifications for other candidates must be reasonable for the sake of fair elections.
* While our constitution should afford greater opportunities for citizens to vote directly on key issues, it should limit other elections for political offices.
Judges should not be elected because elections force them to become politicians. They should be selected by the governor from a list of qualified applicants submitted by a nonpartisan legal panel. Their term would be eight years, and they could be reappointed by the governor (after eight years, it would not be the same governor) if their name was submitted again by the panel. No judge could serve more than 16 years in the same office.
Also, other Council of State offices should be filled by gubernatorial appointment, with these exceptions:
The attorney general and state auditor should be elected, in order to preserve their independent, watchdog roles. And the office of lieutenant governor should be eliminated as irrelevant. In the event of the governor's death, incapacitation or resignation, he would be succeeded by the attorney general.
Greater appointment authority increases the governor's power but also makes him more accountable for the performance of state government. He will be under greater pressure to fire officials who do a poor job.
* Games of chance operated by state government should be prohibited.
* The death penalty should be abolished.
* State government should declare its intention to support federal immigration laws through its law-enforcement agencies.
The only problem with all these proposals is that we're not likely to have a constitutional convention in North Carolina. Why not? The current constitution holds that a convention can only be called by votes of two-thirds of the members of each legislative chamber -- the very people who like things just as they are now.
Contact Doug Clark at dgclark@news-record.com or 373-7039.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Judges should not be elected because elections force them to become politicians. They should be selected by the governor from a list of qualified applicants submitted by a nonpartisan legal panel. Their term would be eight years, and they could be reappointed by the governor (after eight years, it would not be the same governor) if their name was submitted again by the panel. No judge could serve more than 16 years in the same office.* Doug
Sorry Doug! Your opinion shows that even with the present so-called selected committee by the elite Judicical and Governor fails big time with your suggestion with the below story. You already have it and it does not work. Why would you want to take the right of the citizens away to remove a corrupt judge? Why do you hate the voters and citizens [We the people to chose our elected leaders?] with your authortarian suggestion?
Raleigh News & Observer | newsobserver.com | Judge's remarks get no rebuke
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Published: Nov 20, 2007
Judge's remarks get no rebuke
Incumbent made partisan comments
Titan Barksdale, Staff Writer
The N.C. Judicial Standards Commission will not punish N.C. Appeals Court Judge Doug McCullough for partisan comments he made during a speech in Haywood County.
Paul Ross, chairman of the commission, said in a letter that the commission has made "an effort to ensure such conduct is not repeated" by McCullough, a Republican who is seeking re-election.
In a five-minute speech last month, McCullough implied that party politics and a party's agenda can influence how an appellate judge decides a case.
Judicial elections in North Carolina are nonpartisan, and ethical rules require that judges remain unswayed by partisan interests.
McCullough has not returned phone calls to his office seeking comment.
A complaint was filed with the commission by Connie Berry Jr., whose wife, Rachel Hunter, has been a state judicial candidate in the past.
Berry said McCullough ran afoul of ethical rules that require judicial integrity and that a judge remain unswayed by partisan interests.
In the speech, McCullough told Haywood County Republicans that the re-election of N.C. Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds, who is also Republican, is the most "critical political decision" they would have to make.
He said a lawsuit over the way legislative districts are drawn is likely, and he added that because of gerrymandering, Democratic seats are in "safe areas." If Edmunds is re-elected, McCullough said, he would be on the bench to cast a vote on whether the districts are lawful.
Though a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2002 loosened the rules on what judges can talk about during their campaigns, some jurists say it is inappropriate to comment on a case that might come before the court. The state code of judicial conduct was changed after the Supreme Court decision and allowed judges to speak more freely.
Berry said McCullough's comments erode the public's trust in the judiciary's ability to be fair and impartial, and he added that he was disappointed by the commission's decision.
"The issue opens up a whole new game in judicial politics," Berry said. "In short, he is trying to bribe the voters by saying, 'I will make it a Republican paradise if you vote for me or my Republican dream judicial team.' "
Edmunds has distanced himself from McCullough's comments.
Edmunds, in a telephone interview Friday, said that he is an "impartial judge who doesn't prejudge cases" and that McCullough was not part of his campaign.
There was a conversation between the two judges about the comments, but Edmunds declined to provide details.
McCullough "told me that the comments were picked up, and he wanted to give me heads up," Edmunds said. "They were not comments I made myself."
The commission does not make complaints public unless a judge faces a disciplinary action.
Jim Drennan, a UNC professor who is an expert in judicial ethics, said the limits on what judges can talk about are uncertain.
"You want free speech, and an impartial and independent judiciary, and those two are sometimes tugging at each other," Drennan said.
titan.barksdale@newsobserver.com or (919) 829-4802
Posted on November 21, 2007 12:16 PM
Wow, Doug. These are some huge ideas and worth a lot of consideration. The one area I would disagree with is the ballot initiative. Ours is a representative democracy, and (in theory) critical policy issues should be hashed out (and compromised on) by competing interests in the legislative process. If your other reforms were in place, we might not have the same issues in the legislative process. Personally, I vote for my represenatives based not on their specific promises to vote a certain way on an issue, but based on who I think has the best judgment and will make intellectually honest decisions. I understand that some issues are bottled up for political reasons. These are the very hot button issues that people would want to use ballot initiatives for. The problem, as I see it, is that that very fervor will lead to the kinds of dishonest, polarized and money-driven referendum battles that happen in some other states. Civic involvement is reduced to a shouting match over some marginal issue that doesn't have much to do with good government. We don't need this kind of process used to write changes into our constitution that reflect some narrow issue of the day.
Posted on November 21, 2007 12:16 PM
Connie, Judge McCullough was elected, not appointed. Now, I think we've sufficiently made the point about the Lake Junaluska incident and can let it go.
Lisa, thanks for your response. You're right that I&R has created many opportunities for mischief in other states, and I'd hope that wouldn't happen here. Ideally, the opportunity would encourage legislators to act in a way that's more responsive to their constituents -- but they probably would do that anyway if we simply had competitive legislative districts.
Posted on November 21, 2007 12:49 PM
Connie, Judge McCullough was elected, not appointed. Now, I think we've sufficiently made the point about the Lake Junaluska incident and can let it go.* Doug
Maybe for you Doug to let it go! I don't think the voters will let it go anytime soon, until the corrupted Judge is gone. Doug! Do you really think that I am that dumb and stupid and not informed to know DWI Doug was elected and not appointed?
"I AM ASKING READERS TO SET ASIDE POLITICAL LOYALTIES, look past 'values' debates and hot-button issues, to consider this very real possibility: that the failure of the nation to update the Constitution and the structure of government it originally bequeathed to us is at the root of our current political dysfunction."
--Larry J. Sabato
Has it every occured to you Larry that the Ron Paul revolution is sending you a message that the Constitution needs to be restored and repeal first with the unconstitutional garbage that has been added to it? It appears that Mr Sabato miss his founder advice at UVA [Thomas Jefferson] final warning message about the constitution. "The Tree of Liberty needs to be prune with the blood of tyrants that seek to destroy our constitutional liberties every once and awhile!"
Posted on November 21, 2007 7:10 PM