A partisan mistake

Published February 24, 2017

Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, February 23, 2017.

Joe John was a prosecutor in Guilford County, then a District Court judge, then chief District Court judge, then a Superior Court judge. He and his family moved to Raleigh after his election to the N.C. Court of Appeals in 1992, where he served an eight-year term.

In November, at age 77, he was elected as a Democratic state representative from Wake County. Wednesday, the freshman legislator stood for the first time on the House floor to debate a bill, one that would attach partisan labels to candidates running for District and Superior Court judicial seats.

For many years, he said, these candidates have “not been required to engage in election campaigns which threaten to blur the line between the sacred independence of the judicial branch and the raw red meat of hostile partisan elections, a line which only seven states in our union have decided to cross. ...

“Rank political partisanship, Mr. Speaker, is the very antithesis of what we all expect in a judge — fairness, impartiality and a dedicated and determined adherence to the law. Indeed, our North Carolina judges swear an oath to observe the laws and Constitution of the state of North Carolina, and that oath is not sworn upon a copy of the Democratic or Republican Party platform. It is a solemn obligation, solemnly fulfilled on a daily basis by hundreds of judges throughout our state.”

John’s words were not heeded by the majority. Voting largely along party lines, the House approved the bill by a 65-51 margin. A handful of Republicans, including Rep. John Faircloth of High Point, joined nearly all Democrats in voting no.

Even many Republicans in Democratic counties, such as Reps. John Blust and Jon Hardister of Greensboro, voted yes. In doing so, they would make it hard for a Republican to ever be elected to the bench in Guilford County, which votes reliably Democratic.

Proponents of this change, which has yet to be considered in the Senate, say it gives voters information they want and need about judicial candidates. Yes, but not helpful information — unless there are Democratic or Republican positions about speeding tickets, divorce cases or child abuse. Voters should look instead for a candidate’s qualifications and experience and his or her dedication to the rule of law. Partisan labels only encourage voters to make partisan decisions.

They will choose poorly if they assume that affiliation with one party or the other informs them about a candidate’s fitness to carry out the duties of a judge.

It’s unfortunately true that many voters know little about the men and women running for judicial offices. But it’s not difficult for them to learn.

The N.C. Bar Association surveys local lawyers about judges and candidates. Various organizations hold public forums for judicial candidates; others offer endorsements. Newspapers publish information about them. And anyone who wants can attend a session of court and see a judge in action.

Is there harm in affixing a D or R to a candidate’s name on the ballot?

There can be if judges start running for office as partisan politicians or, worse, making political decisions on the bench. They aren’t meant to do that. The founders of our nation established two branches of government, the executive and legislative, whose officers would be elected and whose positions would be inherently political. They set a standard for the third branch, the judicial, that was so distinct that its officers should be appointed for life, not elected.

North Carolina chooses to elect judges but still expects them to separate themselves from political influences. That is unrealistic when they are required to gain their offices in partisan elections.

For the good of our courts, the Senate should reject this change, or else the governor should veto the bill.

http://www.greensboro.com/opinion/n_and_r_editorials/our-opinion-a-partisan-mistake/article_7368d0be-88e3-5af9-88e4-9a5e6960b44d.html

February 24, 2017 at 9:59 am
Norm Kelly says:

At one time NC judges were listed on the ballot with their party affiliation. When did this change? Who implemented the change? And more importantly, WHY was the change implemented?

So, facts are funny darn things. You see, for 100 years Demoncrats ruled the legislature. So, if at one time party affiliation was listed, but now is not, the change had to happen under demon rule. Which begs the question, why did demons make this change?

Then there's this whopper: 'Newspapers publish information about them.' And this can be trusted? When was the last time the N&D rag endorsed a conservative/Republican? It's so obvious that the N&D as a source is useless. When they can't bring themselves to endorse the D candidate, they don't endorse anyone. Before he even made his announcement to run for office, the N&D came out to heartily endorse Roy. Why? Because they KNEW he would be an excellent Governor? Or simply because he had the D next to his name? What an obvious question and answer!

'or, worse, making political decisions on the bench.' Exactly why demons removed the party designation from the ballot. So they could get activist allies elected to the bench to make their jobs easier. It's historically accurate to say when demon pols can't force their agenda on the populace through legislative action, they trot to the courts. This way, their allies ignorantly elected by voters can decide in favor of those who got them elected instead of following the law. It is the hope of every demon/lib pol, and their media allies, to get D judges on the bench specifically so they can make political decisions from the bench. Take the case of NC's voter ID law. The lib judges agreed with demon plaintiffs that black voters are less sophisticated and less educated and more easily confused than white counterparts, and therefore are incapable of understanding that they have to get a picture ID in order to vote. Based on WHAT!? And why do blacks appear to accept this outrage? If judges decided that I was too ignorant to know how to manage my life, I'd be seriously PI55ED and find a way to counter sue to set the record straight. When ANY conservative makes ANY statement about blacks, they are called a racist. No matter what the statement is, blacks and libs turn it around to appear to be a racist statement. Take the case of Trump who said something about 'we' did whatever. Some black people took that as a racist statement, meaning that whites did whatever it was. Yet, Trump didn't say that and didn't mean that. But when libs/demons ACTUALLY say racist things, make racist statements about a major voting block of theirs, blacks and black leaders are mysteriously missing! What gives? So, you see, demons prove for us why they chose to remove party designation from the ballot, and why they object now. And does it surprise anyone that this editorial appeared in a NEWSPAPER. One that claims newspapers print relevant useful information about judges to allow voters to make an informed decision? So, how have they proven they can be trusted? If they are ANYTHING like the N&D, we know they can't be trusted!