Judicial elections usually puzzle voters
My column today:
Some of our most important elected officials get the least attention from voters and the media: judges.
They represent the third branch of government and carry tremendous power, settling questions of law affecting vast amounts of money, people’s freedom or sometimes life and death. They also handle smaller matters that touch the lives of ordinary people daily — traffic cases, divorces and child support, petty crimes, drug offenses and juvenile justice.
In the federal system, judges are appointed. But in North Carolina, voters choose judges at all levels — District Court, Superior Court, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Except that, when vacancies occur, the governor appoints replacements with no system of confirmation. But those judges can serve only until the next election.
The terms of District Court judges are four years, but at higher levels the judges are elected for eight years — the longest tenure granted by voters in any branch of government. So it’s important to choose the right ones.
But how?
That’s a tough question for voters and for me, even though I’m entrusted to make endorsement recommendations to our editorial board.
One aid to voters isn’t available in judicial races: party identification. These are nonpartisan contests. That’s a positive because party affiliation in judicial races is a crutch for voters and irrelevant to the work of the courts.
Furthermore, candidates for judicial offices are prohibited by a code of conduct from proclaiming how they would rule in matters likely to come before the court. Sure, that’s just common sense. But it’s surprising how many voters want to make sure they elect judges who favor the death penalty, or support a woman’s right to choose, or oppose same-sex marriage. Judges should not announce a position on contested legal and political issues, and voters should beware of those who give hints one way or another.
Which brings us back to the key question: how to choose?
The candidates themselves present many different answers. Over the past few months, as I’ve interviewed all the candidates in contested judicial races on the statewide and Guilford County ballots, I’ve heard plenty.
Experience counts, and each candidate claims his or her particular experience is the most valuable. That leaves me, and voters, sorting out whether it’s best to be a law professor, a prosecutor, an attorney with long civil and criminal practice, a utilities commissioner, a lower court judge or an incumbent. Not easy to evaluate.
Some candidates say voters should be swayed by endorsements. By News & Record editorial endorsements, I agree. Also, by endorsements from courthouse insiders known for their honesty and integrity. While sitting judges don’t take sides in other judges’ races, some retired judges openly support candidates. I tend to put a lot of stock in their opinions. They know who can do a good job.
Then there are endorsements by lawyers, lawyers’ associations, political parties and other organizations including teachers’ groups, unions and so on. Consider their motives. Probably most lawyers will offer an objective opinion about candidates, but some may be angling to elect a judge they think will give them the best deal in court. Political parties are anything but objective; I disregard them. And interest groups also might support judicial candidates for the wrong reasons, perhaps making assumptions that the judge will rule their way on pet issues.
A useful source of information about appellate judicial candidates is the Voter Guide you should have received by mail from the State Board of Elections. It’s also online at www.sboe.state.nc.us. You’ll find background information about judicial candidates and statements about their qualifications and philosophy. Look for appropriate credentials and indications of dedication to fairness and impartiality.
If you’re more ambitious, you can find opinions written by appellate judges and posted online. Search: North Carolina court opinions. If you look at enough of them, you can tell which judges seem to flow with the mainstream, which are less in sync with their colleagues, which seem to put more thought and effort into their work.
Few voters, however, have the time or interest to investigate judicial candidates. Newspapers have an obligation to help. I promise to do the best I can to determine which candidates are most qualified to serve on the bench. Our editorial endorsements in judicial races are coming soon. Readers may not trust our judgment or follow our advice, but we will offer informed opinions.
Thanks for reading. Please feel free to call me at 373-7039, send me an email at dgclark@news-record.com or post a comment here.
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Judges should not announce a position on contested legal and political issues, and voters should beware of those who give hints one way or another.* Doug
In short you want a Judge who is scare to death of the first amendment with the voters being in the dark about his/her political opinions. The American judical system was not founded by secret socities like Europe
Which brings us back to the key question: how to choose?
It's call democracy! Try it! It does work with the public
Posted on October 1, 2008 1:03 PM