Power grab casts doubt on judiciary

Editorial by Fayetteville Observer, August 2, 2013.

Never mind speculation, accusations and denials. You can scan the two and a half pages of the newly enacted House Bill 652 and see exactly what the state legislature intended. It's all there, in a few strikethroughs and underlined additions.

The General Assembly intended to strip the Judicial Standards Commission of its authority to discipline judges and award that authority to the state Supreme Court. It meant to strip a panel of Court of Appeals judges of its authority to handle cases alleging misconduct by Supreme Court justices, and give that authority to the Supreme Court, as well. And it meant to take the disciplinary process behind closed doors, with nothing divulged unless the high court voted for a public reprimand, censure, suspension or removal.

You can also set aside, for now, that huge issue of whether this is a grand idea or a dreadful one. Another question begs to be answered first: If it's a grand idea, why did no one stand up and say so, say why, and work to promote public understanding as well as snare votes in the legislature?

Why was it jammed into a House-passed bill having to do with family court appeals, then smuggled into a husk of a bill that began as a measure involving inheritance by out-of-wedlock children? Why did it reappear in the Senate after the Senate had voted it down? What caused 11 senators, including Wesley Meredith of Fayetteville, to reverse themselves and vote for what they'd just voted against? And why did the final vote come on the last day of the session?

Set aside the question of why Associate Justices Paul Newby and Mark Martin, along with two other justices too modest to step forward and take their bows, lobbied the legislature to do this. Why would anybody in any line of work want to upend a disciplinary system that manages hundreds of cases a year - dismissing most and deftly handling the rest, many of which involve straightforward, uncontroversial issues like ticket-fixing and driving while impaired?

It's easy to see what has happened here.

Not long ago, North Carolina had public financing to discourage donors from flooding its judicial races with money. That's gone now. For years this state has done what it could to keep judicial elections nonpartisan. That's under siege in the legislature.

We did not need this sneak attack, which invites suspicions about misusing the disciplinary process as a political shield or club, to further undermine public confidence in the neutrality of our courts.

Thanks for nothing.