judgesonmerit.org

A commentary piece in the Charlotte Observer calls for a change in the way North Carolina selects judges.  Currently, North Carolina uses nonpartisan elections to select judges, although many first reach the bench through gubernatorial appointment and then run for reelection.  The author notes:

Many lawyers who would be highly desirable candidates for judgeships are understandably unwilling to put their careers and reputations at risk by running for the bench under our present system. The public is the ultimate loser. We lose our expectation that those who mete out justice will be chosen from among the best of the best.

The solution proposed is a Merit Selection system, whereby “nonpartisan panel[s] of experienced, respected lawyers and non-lawyer citizens[would] examine the qualifications of those who wish to be considered for a. . . judgeship and . . . certify to the governor those who appear professionally and temperamentally suited to become a judge.” The Governor would be required to appoint from those lists.  There would be regular performance evaluations, the results of which would be publicized, and each judge would stand before the public in uncontested retention elections.

This makes sense to us, and is similar, though not identical to, the proposals we have supported to change the way Pennyslvania’s appellate judges are selected.  As the author notes: “For such change to succeed, respected civic leaders from outside the legal profession must be willing to join with lawyers in insisting that our legislature address this problem.”  We hope that will happen here, and we wish them luck in North Carolina.

Sometimes real stories are stranger than fiction and illustrate the problems with electing judges better than any scenario we could imagine. Here are some true horror stories drawn from current judicial elections in other states. We wish we could say this is a one-time feature, but we’re pretty sure we’ll have more horror stories to share as the campaign season continues.

Our first example comes from North Carolina where Bill Belk has decided to get back at the judge who ruled against him many times during his long and costly divorce. How? By running for that judge’s seat! There has been very little news about the race since the Observer article was published in June. But Belk is still on the ballot in an effort, in his own words, “to reform the system.” His claim doesn’t sound convincing to voters, one of whom dismisses Belk as a “rich guy with a law degree but little legal experience” who is clearly running a revenge campaign.

Case number 2 makes us wonder: does running for a judicial election make a person sacrifice the long-term friendships of those who won’t donate to the campaign? It appears so in Kansas, where Reginald Davis, seeking to be a county judge, texted the following message to some attorneys who were friends of his:

If you are truly my friend then you would cut a check to the campaign! If you do not then its time I checked you. Either you are with me or against me!

An ultimatum in quasi-military language? A physical threat? Someone so desperate to win the election that he’ll risk losing friendships? Davis has been ordered to cease and desist soliciting campaign contributions personally. And the text message was found to have violated part of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct.

Judicial elections require lots of money. Belk has it and that’s why he can run for an office for which he is likely unqualified and in which he’s not all that interested, and it’s what Davis needs to be able to run. As these real life stories show, money and judicial selection just shouldn’t mix.