NC’s Supreme Court races are about to bring a surge of political mud wrestling
In all the hubbub over allegations of partisanship on the North Carolina Supreme Court, one charge from Republican state Sen. Amy Galey of Alamance County is particularly striking.
It came as Republicans said Justice Anita Earls, a Democrat, could not impartially judge the constitutionality of extremely gerrymandered electoral district maps produced by the Republican-led legislature. Earls should be disqualified, Galey and other Republican lawmakers said, because her 2018 campaign was supported by an anti-gerrymandering group led by former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder.
Galey said in a statement: “Buying judgeships so partisan activists can use the power of the court to get desired political outcomes destroys the legitimacy of the judiciary.”
In the Olympics of hypocrisy, that gets a gold medal. Allowing the “buying [of] judgeships so partisan activists can use the power of the court to get desired political outcomes” essentially describes the Republican approach to judicial elections over the last decade.
Starting in 2004, a reform pushed by the voting rights group Democracy North Carolina allowed for the public financing of appellate court elections. The change provided an alternative to judges begging for campaign contributions from lawyers and others who might have business before their court.
In 2013, Republican lawmakers, urged on by mega-donor Art Pope, eliminated the public funding of elections. That move, combined with the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United 5-4 decision backed by all Republican appointees, allowed outside money into judicial elections and created a situation where outside groups can affect the election of state supreme court judges.
The effect has been especially pernicious in North Carolina, where Republican lawmakers, for good measure, have also restored partisan labels to all judicial elections.
According to a Brennan Center for Justice report, spending on North Carolina’s Supreme Court races during the 2019-20 period ranked fourth nationally at $10.4 million. A third of the money was from outside groups whose donors can be difficult to track.
The outside spending “has gotten increasingly out of control,” said Bob Hall, the former head of Democracy North Carolina.
No doubt the upcoming North Carolina Supreme Court elections will see outside spending soar. Democrats hold a 4-3 majority on the high court, but two seats held by Democrats are on the ballot. If Republicans can win one of those races, they’ll have a majority on the court.
NC GOP Chairman Michael Whatley is clear about the urgency of the judicial elections. He said in a statement, “Electing conservative judges who respect the Constitution is a top priority for us every cycle, but especially in this year’s elections.”
NC Democratic Chair Bobbie Richardson said her party is also all in. She said in a statement, “As the last firewall protecting the rights of North Carolinians and upholding justice, our courts couldn’t be a bigger priority for North Carolina Democrats.”
Of course, party labels shouldn’t matter. Justices should rule in accordance with a fair reading of the law. But that is not the perception of the public.
With big cases coming to the state Supreme Court on school funding and possibly more cases involving the constitutionality of Republican-backed legislation, Republicans want their team in place. A judicial campaign of nasty ads funded by outside groups will only heighten the sense that the Supreme Court is not the check on political abuses, but rather part of the spoils of electoral victories.
The Brennan Center’s Douglas Keith said it doesn’t have to be that way. There are changes that could break the court’s downward spiral into the muck of politics. One option is to limit judges to one term. That way a judge is never facing election as he or she considers cases. Another is to have a broad-based and independent commission appoint judges, a change that eliminates the hazards of judicial elections.
Those in favor of taking the politics – and the influence buying – out of judicial elections should pursue those reforms. But in the meantime, North Carolina will have to endure two bouts of political mud wrestling as voters choose members of its highest court, which is increasingly in danger of being brought low.
This story was originally published February 17, 2022 at 4:30 AM with the headline "NC’s Supreme Court races are about to bring a surge of political mud wrestling."