Political parties aim to ruin judicial races
I mentioned the other day that the least credible judicial endorsements are those made by the political parties.
Here's what I'm talking about:
The N.C. Democratic Party has a page on its Web site explaining why voters should elect "Democratic judges."
Why?
"Under Republican judges, corporate power and immunity has expanded.
"We need to elect democratic judges to the bench to protect consumers' rights, defend environmental protections, and allow the opportunity for individual citizens to find justice."
This is referring to state courts, not federal.
Of course, the N.C. Democratic Party doesn't offer a single example of how, "under Republican judges, corporate power and immunity has expanded."
I challenge the NCDP to back up its statement. I challenge it to show a case in North Carolina courts where there's been a difference in the quality of justice rendered by "Republican judges" as opposed to "Democratic judges."
I submit this will be difficult to do. One reason is that our judiciary is nonpartisan. Another is that, even if you want to make an issue of judges' personal party affiliation, you'll find "Republican judges" and "Democratic judges" agreeing much more often than they differ.
Some years ago, the state legislature made the wise decision of removing the party labels from the ballot in judicial elections. That requires voters to determine which candidates are most qualified rather than which ones are D's and which are R's. I know, that's a challenge beyond the abilities of many voters and all party officials, but it's intended to remove politics from the bench.
Unfortunately, the parties can't let it go. The N.C. Republican Party lists "Republican" judicial candidates on its Web site, too.
But it doesn't mimic the idiocy of the Democrats' blatantly insulting declaration that the cause of justice in this state depends on the election of judges of their political affiliation.
Not only is that untrue, but it slanders the entire judicial system in North Carolina to insinuate that the courts have allowed the expansion of "corporate power and immunity," whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.
Fortunately, people who really know something and care about the integrity of our courts don't go along with this nonsense. That's why you'll see good judges drawing bipartisan support. The judicial candidates who are backed only by their own parties are the ones you probably ought to worry about.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Speaking of the idiocy of the Democrats and their website, they misspelled EDMUNDS and had that Supreme Court seat listed under the heading “NC Appellate Court Candidates”.
Posted on October 3, 2008 11:37 PM
"Some years ago, the state legislature made the wise decision of removing the party labels from the ballot in judicial elections."
Here's what Republicans (and Civitas) think about your opinion:
http://ncgop.blogspot.com/2008/08/less-information-more-justice.html
Less Information = More Justice?
By Chris McClure
Executive Director, North Carolina Republican Party
"A new poll from Civitas confirms the arguments that Republicans have made all along against removing party identification in judicial races from the ballot. Depriving voters of important information like party affiliation serves no purpose other than to try to tip the scales in the favor of one party or the other. In this case, because Democrats know that Republicans enjoy an advantage with voters when it comes to crime and justice, the Democrat leadership in the state thought that if you can't win the way elections are currently done then just change the rules.
Democrats argued at the time that it was a way to remove the politics from judicial elections. That is nonsense. The only way to remove the politics from elections is to not have elections at all. Make no mistake. Democrats would have their leadership appoint all the judges in the state if they thought voters would accept such a change, but voters have a funny way of wanting to have as many choices as possible. They are unlikely to support removing races from the ballot.
Voters also never would have supported removing important information from the ballot when making their choice of who would sit on the state's highest courts. Instead of giving voters such a choice, the Democrat leadership in Raleigh made that choice for them.
When fewer than half of voters have the information necessary about a race to make an informed choice, there is a problem with the system. In all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of voters will refuse to cast a vote for these important judicial offices this year. With this politically rigged process for electing judges, we delegitimize their elections in North Carolina, we tamper with democracy in general, and we cast a shadow of doubt on the justice system as a whole."
Posted on October 4, 2008 10:43 AM
That's why you'll see good judges drawing bipartisan support. The judicial candidates who are backed only by their own parties are the ones you probably ought to worry about* Doug
According to your political judical math, that means there is not a judicial candiate left to support except the below.......
http://bluenc.com/the-truth-about-state-wide-judical-campaigns%3F
Posted on October 4, 2008 4:42 PM
Scharrison:
Obviously I disagree with the Republicans on the subject of judicial elections, but that are right that the Democrats pushed through the change to nonpartisan judicial elections when these contests became competitive and voters were choosing a lot of Republican judges. And then, now that we have a nonpartisan system, the Democrats and their surrogates continue partisan campaigning for "their" judicial candidates in all but name.
Related: My wife received her slate of "recommended" candidates from Guilford Association of Educators today. Guess what? All the recommended judicial candidates just happen to be Democrats.
So do all the other candidates on the GAE slate, for that matter, except Republican state Rep. Laura Wiley, who's running unopposed.
I'd like to know how GAE made its judicial selections. Probably something like: "Gee, we have no idea. Let's ask the Democratic Party!"
Posted on October 4, 2008 5:43 PM
Doug, review GS-163-165.6(d)
Look at the ballot.
Posted on October 4, 2008 9:05 PM
"...the Democrats pushed through the change to nonpartisan judicial elections when these contests became competitive and voters were choosing a lot of Republican judges."
If you'll look at the law as passed, it appears the focus was more about limiting campaign contributions than it was about clouding party affiliation, but it may be true that the Dems in the GA did this to counter Republican victories. I'm having a little trouble scaring up the numbers on judicial elections then vs now, so I'll (tentatively) concede that.
And although I personally would prefer the party be shown on the ballot, as it does (kind of) help voters get a feel for ideology, there's some interesting stuff in this study:
https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/5813/200706191.pdf?sequence=1
Note the fundraising averages and election results for the partisan races. It looks like the Republicans raised a lot more and won a lot more. Which makes sense, but I'm not really sure I like money being the determining factor of who sits behind the bench. I don't know.
Posted on October 5, 2008 1:30 AM
Thanks, Scharrison. I'll review that study. I've come around to favor public financing for judicial candidates because we don't need million-dollar campaigns in those race.
Joe, in nonpartisan races, including the judicial elections, candidates are listed in alphabetical order. In the partisan races, Democrats are listed first.
Posted on October 5, 2008 1:02 PM