Keep Parties In Judiciary For Voters

This week the Democratic politicos passed with stunning haste a bill to transform the election process for judges of the N.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeals beginning in 2004.

What a waste.

No longer will the demigods of justice and jurisprudence be victims to that classical bane of justice and jurisprudence -- partisan elections. If judicial candidates agree to curb private fund raising they will soon receive public dollars.

Future campaigns will be financed through voluntary $50 contributions from attorneys renewing their licenses or by a voluntary $3 option on state income tax forms. Appellate court candidates could garner upward of $700,000 in public dollars if they follow the rules; they must receive contributions from at least 350 registered voters -- no more than $500 each -- and there will be a new $1,000 cap on donations.

And presto, politics will be removed, kicking and screaming, from our proud judiciary.

Heralded as groundbreaking, this bill is plainly a veiled attempt to break up the Republican control of the state's judiciary.

Biloxi, Miss., oddsmakers have 5-2 odds on this legislation being signed into law by Gov. Mike Easley.

I'm not a gambling man, but I'll take those odds. Why? Well, they mirror the ratio of the Supreme Court -- five Republicans to two Democrats. The same Supreme Court that foiled the Democrats during the fierce redistricting battle.

It sure made N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper mad, and Easley, and every single Democrat in North Carolina. It's a vendetta, and they were out for blood. This week they became vampires.

The Republican fund-raising machine is licking its wounds. The Democrats are toasting their success.

Democrats made it an issue of elevated ideals; Republicans espoused the impracticality of non-partisan elections. Both sides missed the point -- with the judiciary, it's all or nothing.

Judges must be selected by presidents or governors or heads of state or they must be selected in a manner that properly incorporates the body politic. It is every American's sacred right to choose a judge by the "D" or "R" criteria -- Democrat or Republican.

So how do you precisely separate political beliefs from ideological tenets? Good luck, because politics is the means to pass ideals into policy.

Sure, we're usually clueless to the qualifications or platforms of the candidates. And sure, there remain very few litigations that revolve around political beliefs. But some do.

What happens when the candidate you selected for the Supreme Court affirms Republican gerrymandering? You thought he was just a judge. Well he is -- but even a judge, maybe even the best of judges, will mosey to an ideological base camp garrisoned by, yes, politically motivated persons.

Removing partisanship is not as The (Raleigh) News & Observer stated in its Thursday editorial "Building Trust." Removing partisanship is something irritated politicians do (along party lines) when they're just that -- irritated.

Nathan Perez can be reached at nperez@email.unc.edu.