Editorial: Legislature's idea of 'reforming' state courts is to further politicize justice

Wednesday, May 2, 2018 -- The N.C. General Assembly, since 2011, has worked relentlessly to weaken other "co-equal" branches of state government and make the courts more political and beholden to special interests. It is the legislature that's reversed movement toward non-partisan election of judges. Legislators abolished a program for public financing of judicial campaigns that was a national model.

Posted 9:00 a.m. May 2, 2018 — Updated 9:00 a.m. May 2, 2018

CBC Editorial: Wednesday, May 2, 2018; Editorial # 8297

The following is the opinion of Capitol Broadcasting Company

As voters head to the polls for the May 8 primary, they’ll find something missing. For the first time since 1958 – that’s 60 years – there is no statewide race on the ballot.

There should be, but the folks who run the North Carolina General Assembly decided to call off the judicial primary elections for fear that the people they want to install in office might not be the same folks North Carolina voters pick.

Like some dictatorship on the other side of the planet, political strongmen in North Carolina called off an election.

State Rep. Justin Burr, a bail bond agent from Stanly County, has been the front-man for the effort to upend the way judges are selected in North Carolina. Last week, he inaccurately portrayed how judicial vacancies are filled between elections.

"Currently, many of these vacancies are filled in secret behind the iron fence of the governor’s mansion with no involvement from the public whatsoever, and I have had a problem with that for years," Burr told fellow legislators last week. Curiously, Burr didn’t utter a peep about it until Republican Gov. Pat McCrory was no longer in office.

Given Burr’s profession, he undoubtedly knows better. The reality is something quite different. Filling judicial vacancies, such as one now in Beaufort County, are relatively open affairs. The local bar offers up a list nominees to the governor – the process even gets local news coverage – and the governor makes an appointment.

The legislature, since 2011, has worked relentlessly to weaken other "co-equal" branches of state government and make the courts more political and beholden to special interests. It is the legislature that’s reversed movement toward non-partisan election of judges. Legislators abolished a program for public financing of judicial campaigns that was a national model.

That’s not all. These legislators seek to change the number of judges on appeals courts; They’ve rigged the order of names on the ballot in mid-campaign; They want to gerrymander judicial and prosecutorial districts to favor one political party; and they eliminate primaries. It is all part of a plan, reminiscent of the Jim Crow era, to enshrine a narrow ideology and impose their rules.

It has become so extreme that some of the biggest Republican cheerleaders in the legislature now openly complain.

"Why are we competent to make this kind of decision on appointing judges?" asked state Rep. John Blust, a Republican from Greensboro. "Why do we want to take on one more thing that may not be an area we have expertise when we claim we have limited time and we can’t get to so many important subjects because of that limited time?" Blust, a 10-term legislative veteran, isn’t seeking re-election.

He’s not alone.

Just a couple of weeks ago, a bipartisan group of judges in Forsyth County expressed their worries. "I’ve been practicing law for over 40 years," said District Court Judge Gordon Miller, a Republican who added he’s a member of the National Rifle Association. "I don’t sit on the bench as a member of the NRA or a Republican, I sit there as a District Court judge. … I disagree with the bills that have been proposed and I think they’re horrible ideas."

Burr and the rest of the gang need to stop their meddling in the courts. If Burr is really in the mood to reform something, he might look into some changes needed in his own profession – the bail system which has been described as "badly flawed" and "antiquated." Similar systems around the nation have been called unconstitutional.

That would be a reform challenge worth taking on.

Suggest A Correction