House OKs Campaign Reforms for Court Elections

The bill passed in the N.C. House 57-54 in the second of two required votes and will now head to the Senate for consideration. A similar bill passed the Senate on Nov. 20 but was not addressed by the House before the end of last year's session.

Chris Heagarty, executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, said the center has been a proponent of the bill for a long time.

"I think the legislation is fair, and I think the public thinks it's fair," he said.

Heagarty said he thinks campaigns are jaded because of political parties and their ads. Respectable judges sometimes get thrown out of office because of these ads, he said.

In the 2000 elections, almost two-thirds of campaign funds for N.C. Court of Appeals races came from attorneys. Attorneys also provided half the funds for N.C. Supreme Court races.

"Our research shows that special-interest dollars are sometimes more important than tax dollars," Heagarty said.

Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand, D-Cumberland, said he favors the legislation because funding judicial campaigns with taxpayer dollars would reduce campaign excesses.

"Judges are increasingly concerned about the money chase, which calls into question judicial campaigns supported by lawyers," he said. "We must avoid evil and the appearance of evil."

But Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, said he disagrees with the legislation because it would force voters to choose between weaker candidates.

"More unqualified candidates will be able to run for office now that judiciary campaigns are financed by a public pool," Berger said. The ability of candidates to generate financial support shows their viability as a candidate, he said.

Berger also said that many voters rely on party affiliation to cast their votes and that eliminating that point of reference takes crucial knowledge away.

Gene Nichol, dean of the UNC School of Law, said using tax dollars to fund campaigns is fairer than having wealthy people donate money.

Having wealthy individuals fund campaigns gives them more influence in elections than the average citizen.

"I think everything we can do to limit partisan politics and (private) money on the judicial process is good," he said.

Nichol said judges are different from legislators and should make decisions independently, not according to political demand.

A report issued by the American Bar Association last February states that the ABA also supports the public financing of judicial campaigns. The association recommended that "states which select judges in contested elections finance judicial elections with public funds."

Rand said the bill's passage is good for the state's judicial system.

"Party affiliation should not matter in judiciary elections," he said. "The non-partisan system is the best way to go for right now."

The State & National Editor can be reached at stntdesk@unc.edu.