Electing Judges Places Politics Over Justice

This time of year, it's not unexpected to see signs staking out square feet of the roadside for political candidates.

Price for Congress.

Vinroot for Governor.

They're nothing out of the ordinary - candidates running for the legislative or executive branches of government.

But then there are the others.

Re-elect Frye to the Supreme Court.

Hudson for Court of Appeals.

That's right. In North Carolina, we vote for our judges. While little known, this process isn't unusual. Residents of most states elect their judges.

The argument in favor of this process is that judges should be accountable for the decisions they make. If a judge interprets the state Constitution in a way that's disagreeable to the public, voters should have the right to oust him or her.

Such reasoning is exactly opposite the role the founders intended for the judiciary. The courts are meant to interpret the constitution, not make decisions based on opinion polls.

"Judges have, or should have, the leisure, the training and the insulation to follow the ways of the scholar in pursuing the ends of government. This is crucial in sorting out the enduring values of a society," writes Alexander Bickel in "The Least Dangerous Branch."

Holding elections for judges tears holes in their insulation from public opinion and could force judges into decisions inconsistent with the existing body of law. But the framers of the N.C. Constitution decided on this method of choosing the N.C. judiciary.

Some forms of judicial election are more palatable than others. Some states have partisan elections, while others are nonpartisan. In North Carolina, there's a hybrid in which Supreme Court justices run on nonpartisan tickets, while all other judges run based on their political party.

Once again, this brings into question the duty of the courts to provide fair, impartial constitutional interpretation. Running as a party member implies that the judge could or would lean toward a certain agenda and would have to keep that agenda to be re-elected.

UNC political science Professor Isaac Unah said platforms are rarely explicit in judges' campaigns.

"They're a different kind of politician," he said. "They realize they're supposed to be unbiased."

But political party has no place on the bench. Judges should run on their experience, not their attitudes toward subjects implied by party membership.

Political partisanship also affects the selection process for future U.S. Supreme Court justices. Presidents nominate justices for the U.S. Supreme Court, with Senate approval.

Up to four of the current justices could retire or die during the next president's term, so potential Supreme Court nominees have become a hot issue this election.

At stake, Al Gore leads us to believe, is the survival of Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to have an abortion. In the years since the court's 1972 decision, the court has grown more conservative. It upheld Roe v. Wade in recent decisions with 5-4 votes.

A few more conservative (read: Republican) justices could swing the balance, Gore warns.

This scenario isn't much different from the one in North Carolina.

Many people will end up voting for the president whose Supreme Court nominees reflect the voters' political views. People in this state will directly vote for judges with their political views.

But the difference is that U.S. Supreme Court justices are on the bench for life. After they're approved, they need not make decisions based on what the latest poll results or their chances for re-election. They can be inconsistent in their political views to ensure consistency in their constitutional interpretation.

In contrast, political affiliation must be in the back of N.C. judges minds' since they ran on their parties' tickets. North Carolina residents should move to build protect the integrity of our judges by installing a nonpartisan

election process.

Columnist Anne Fawcett can be reached at fawcetta@hotmail.com.