A proposed constitutional amendment that would shift much of the power to appoint judges from the governor to lawmakers is one step closer to going before the voters this fall.
The House gave initial approval Wednesday to the measure by the narrowest margin. Proposed amendments require a three-fifths vote in both the House and the Senate, which means 72 votes are needed in the House. The first vote on the proposal was 72-48. A final vote is expected Thursday.
Other WRAL Top Stories
Rep. Justin Burr, R-Stanly, who had pushed various reforms of the state courts in recent years, said Senate Bill 814, dubbed the Judicial Vacancy Sunshine Amendment, will fix a "broken process" he says has been based on cronyism and behind-the-scenes deals for decades. He cited former Gov. Bev Perdue appointing four judges on her final day in office, three of whom had no experience on the bench.
Citing figures that about 5 percent of the seats on the bench need to be filled annually, Burr said, "A two-term governor would likely appoint approximately 40 percent of the judges in the state based on political influence, behind closed doors, not based on qualifications or merit."
The amendment calls for the creation of a state commission to vet judicial nominees and forward recommendations to the General Assembly. Lawmakers would then send at least two names to the governor for him or her to select one.
Burr said the proposal might even decrease the number of vacancies because judges couldn't step down early in order to get a friend or colleague named to fill the seat.
Democrats said the effort merely shifts the closed doors from the Executive Mansion to the Legislative Building.
"This is anything but sunshine. This is a legislative thunderbolt," said Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham, a former District Court judge.
Morey referenced a Tuesday debate on another proposed amendment shifting appointment powers for many state boards and commissions from the governor to lawmakers in which backers of that measure noted North Carolina government consists of "separate and distinct" branches, not "separate but equal."
"Let's keep our judiciary distinct," she said. "This is an attempt by the legislature to take total control of judicial vacancies."
Supporters said the amendment would affect only how vacancies are filled and that voters would still be able to elect judges, but Rep. Darren Jackson, D-Wake, noted that the bill is written in such a way as to let the appointed judge get an extra two years on the bench before having to run for election.
"So it absolutely affects the right of the people to vote on that judge," Jackson said.
Rep. Robert Reives, D-Chatham, said the existing nominating process for judicial vacancies, in which groups of lawyers in each county send nominees to the governor, is more open and has more local input than the proposed changes.
"No matter how open that commission is, the General Assembly is going to be the one making the decision about who these judges should be," Reives said, asking why the amendment couldn't leave the commission in charge of selections.
"Politics are going to come into play," he said. "The General Assembly doesn't need to be selecting judges."
The Senate already approved the proposal, so if it clears its final House vote on Thursday, it would appear on November's ballot.