News-Record.com

The Wake Forest law professor is rippling the normally tranquil waters of North Carolina appellate court affairs, although she’s probably not making enough of a splash yet for many voters to notice.

Reynolds, who practiced law in Greensboro before starting her Wake Forest career 26 years ago, steadfastly declines to criticize Edmunds.

“I don’t expect to study his decisions and comment on them,” she said of her opponent, a Greensboro resident, former U.S. attorney and eight-year justice.

Instead, she’s challenging “the status quo of the court.” What’s that? It doesn’t accept enough cases for consideration and doesn’t write enough opinions, she says.

The lack of output leaves too much confusion, Reynolds says. The court should take more opportunities to clarify the law.

Needless to say, this touches a nerve. I contacted or left messages for several current and former Supreme Court justices asking for comment. Some didn’t return my call and some agreed to speak only off the record. Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson politely declined to comment on the grounds that she would be “inserting myself into a campaign.”

The only one who spoke on the record was the one who’s already in the campaign — Edmunds himself. He strongly defended the work of the court, noting: “I work harder in this job than any other job I’ve ever had. ... A lot of our work is invisible.”

More about that later.

Ironically, however, sources inside the court — meaning they declined to be named — said Edmunds actually is one justice who’s pushing to pick up the pace.

There are rules that govern the court’s workload, but the court also has some latitude.

All death-penalty cases are appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and they are time-consuming. But they are decreasing in number.

All cases decided by split decision in the Court of Appeals, the next lower rung on the ladder, carry an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court. That number has increased since the Court of Appeals was expanded from 12 to 15 judges several years ago.

The Supreme Court may accept petitions for discretionary review in cases decided unanimously by the lower court — and it should do so, by statute, when the appeal has significant public interest, or major legal principles are involved, or the Court of Appeals ruling seems to conflict with a prior decision of the Supreme Court.

At least three of the seven justices must agree to accept a case on discretionary review. This is happening less often.

This is also where the “invisible” work comes in, Edmunds said. Justices study these cases in depth and write sometimes-lengthy memos on their merits, then discuss them in conference — only in most instances to decide against hearing the appeal.

Even in cases the court does accept, it often issues a “per curiam” (or “by the court”) ruling — essentially adopting the opinion of the Court of Appeals rather than writing one of its own.

All seven justices must agree to do that. It takes only one to force the court to write its own opinion.

It’s certainly possible that the Court of Appeals — in either its majority opinion or sometimes a dissenting opinion — really nailed it. But it’s also true that the Court of Appeals generally produces shorter and legally shallower opinions. Letting those opinions stand as the last word disappoints many in North Carolina’s legal community, and even some appeals court judges.

One, Eric Levinson, raised similar issues when he ran for a Supreme Court seat two years ago — and lost.

Reynolds may not make a case for unseating Edmunds, but she could force the court to re-examine its “status quo.” One justice told me this is likely to happen. We’ll see.

Few people ever get to look inside our Supreme Court. Its ways are mysterious to most of us. Does it function as well as it should? That’s very hard to say, but asking the question seems like a good idea.

Call me at 373-7039, email me at dgclark@news-record.com or, even better, post a comment right here.