As Election Day looms, I am constantly reminded of the partisanship entrenched in the municipal, state and national levels of our government. From state auditors to state supreme court justices, party affiliation is prerequisite to winning elections. For some offices, I can’t fathom what role one’s party plays in indicating notions of policy or conduct. There’s an old saying that “there’s not a Republican or Democratic way to fill a pothole.” Is the same true for auditing taxes? For interpreting the law?
Taking the North Carolina state auditor’s race, for instance, most voters won’t spend a moment researching what Jessica Holmes’ Democratic affiliation or Dave Boliek’s Republican affiliation means for their conduct in office. Meanwhile, the Libertarian party’s Bob Drach is the only actual accountant in the running for the office.
North Carolina’s state supreme court justices, too, are elected in partisan elections. Given that the judicial branch is constitutionally intended to be insulated from the passions of the people, the fact that these are elected offices alone draws my ire. The attachment of party labels to courts — institutions meant to function as “bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments” — is nothing short of infuriating.
I don’t seek to make a claim about any specific N.C. candidate in this piece, but rather to speak to the extreme partisanship imbued in our state institutions — even, and perhaps especially, in offices that lack political latitude. There is a use for partisan labels in facilitating the voting process; who has time to research the next state auditor, anyway? It’s easy for us all to vote along party lines without a second thought.
My concern is that hyper-partisanship can diminish meritocracy. Qualified candidates who value nonpartisanship are forced to either run along party lines or simply lose. This creates perverse incentives, especially for offices that ought to operate away from the fray of petty politics.
In the case of the judiciary, partisanship often counteracts with functionality. In 2023, after Republicans gained a 5-2 majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court, they reheard and reversed two rulings that the court had issued only four months prior. In Harper v. Hall, the new court determined that they could not police partisan gerrymandering, and in Holmes v. Moore, they upheld a voter ID law alleged to discriminate against voters on racial grounds. In both cases, the dissenting justices questioned whether the majority’s motivations were partisan in nature. It’s a fair question. To reverse your own ruling after a change in partisan composition doesn’t epitomize an impartial and independent judiciary, to say the least.
I recognize that partisan elections, even for offices that should be apolitical, make functional sense. Without them, the onus is placed on voters to research candidates for obscure offices. I don’t mean to argue for reforms that add to constituents’ plates. That said, injecting politics into every facet of government, namely offices where objectivity is vital, is detrimental.
We deserve qualified and unbiased candidates, whether they are elected or appointed to office. As tempting as it is to vote blindly blue or red down the ballot, I’d urge you to visit the N.C. State Board of Elections website and examine your sample ballot. I did so while writing this piece. The only office on the “Nonpartisan Elections” section of the ballot? My county’s Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor. Go figure.
