CHOOSING JUDGES: MONEY GIVEN IN PAST RACES
IS RESTRICTED, REPLACED UNDER NEW PROGRAM

Cost of Seat on Top Courts Climbs, With Most Money
Coming from Attorneys and Special-Interest Groups

(released February 2004)

More than $300,000 raised in the 2002 elections for the state's top two courts would no longer be permitted, if candidates for these offices accept the restrictions - and benefits - of a new "Voter-Owned" public financing program that begins this year.
The prohibited funds came from special-interest groups and donors with a direct stake in how courts rule. They include checks totaling $44,000 from the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers and $10,000 from political committees sponsored by physicians, who oppose the trial attorneys in medical malpractice lawsuits; nearly $200,000 from Democratic and Republican party committees, who oppose each other in court fights over redistricting; and $80,000 from other PACs for such interests as banks, insurance companies, defense attorneys, and labor unions.

"A relatively small amount of this special-interest money can still find its way into campaigns, particularly in the very early stage," said Bob Hall, research director for Democracy North Carolina, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money in state politics. "But under the new program, where registered voters authorize a candidate to receive 'clean' public funds, the amount supplied by parties with a vested interest in a court's decisions will be dramatically reduced."

Candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals raised $1.3 million in the 2002 elections, not counting loans or donations from themselves and their families. Democracy North Carolina's research shows that two thirds of the $1.3 million came from attorneys, attorney-backed committees, and special-interest donors frequently involved in court cases.*

By contrast, Hall said that two thirds or more of the funds used by a candidate in the new public financing program would come from the Public Campaign Financing Fund. To qualify for $137,500 or $201,000 from the Fund, depending on the office sought, a candidate must first raise $33,000 to $69,000 from at least 350 registered voters giving $10 to $500 each.

The Fund gets most of its money from a $3 designation or check-off on the state income-tax form. "Agreeing to the check-off doesn't increase a person's tax or reduce any refund," said Gary Bartlett, executive director of the State Board of Elections. "It simply tells the Revenue Department to send $3 to the Fund."
Bartlett has publicly worried that if not enough taxpayers mark the check-off box for the Public Campaign Financing Fund, it will not have enough money for all qualified candidates or, more at risk, enough for wide distribution of a Judicial Voter Guide describing the candidates and courts.
-----------------------------------------
* This assumes that unitemized small donations follow the same profile of identified donation. It also excludes more than $200,000 in loans and donations from the candidates (who are all attorneys) and their families, which who make the percent coming from attorneys even higher.

"We'd like to mail the voter guide to every potential voter in the state," Bartlett said. "But that can't happen unless people recognize this benefit and mark the check-off box for the Fund."

Television ads featuring former governors Jim Hunt (D) and Jim Holshouser (R) are promoting the check-off. Democracy North Carolina and other election reform groups are also distributing 1,000,000 "buckslips" to tax offices, companies and civic organizations describing the Fund's benefits and urging taxpayers to "Put Your Mark on History."

"The basic costs of the new program should be covered if 10 percent of taxpayers mark 'Yes' on the check-off," said Hall. "But we'll need closer to 15 percent participation to get the voter guide mailed to households for both the primary and general election."

The new program is voluntary for candidates as well as taxpayers. So far, four candidates for 2004 have filed papers indicating their intent to abide by the program's strict fund-raising and spending limits. They are Justice Sarah Parker of the N.C. Supreme Court, judges Wanda Bryant and Linda McGee of the N.C. Court of Appeals, and challenger Doug Berger.

Under the new law, appellate judges will no longer run with party labels, and that could mean they'll need more money to get their message out without the help of political parties.

According to Democracy North Carolina analysis, the cost of running for the appellate court has trended upward. Between 1998 and 2002, spending jumped 60 percent per candidate for the Court of Appeals and 11 percent per candidate for the state Supreme Court.

In 2000, a record $1.1 million was spent in the race for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the better-funded incumbent Henry E. Frye, an African-American Democrat, losing to the white Republican I. Beverly Lake, then an associate justice on the court.

Hall noted that the Frye-Lake pattern has continued, with three more incumbent African-American Democrats losing appellate court races in 2002 to lesser-funded white Republicans.

Democracy North Carolina's analysis shows that six of the seven Republican appellate candidates won in 2002, regardless of whether or not they out-spent their opponent. By contrast, in 1998, all seven candidates who out-spent their opponents won, regardless of their party affiliation.

"A candidate's party label or fund-raising ability should not determine who wins, because neither tells us about the candidate's judicial training or temperament," said Peg Chapin of Charlotte, co-chair of the League of Women Voters of N.C. The League and other members of N.C. Voters for Clean Elections lobbied to lower contribution limits and make appellate elections nonpartisan in the same legislation that launched the public financing program and voter guide.

"There is a strong consensus, inside and outside the legal community, that judges should not be beholden to large campaign donors, nor should they represent partisan interests," said Sen. Wib Gulley, the chief sponsor of the Judicial Campaign Reform Act.

"We want judges who are independent, impartial and fair, and the new law helps make that happen," said Rep. William Culpepper, chief sponsor in the state House.

"The American Bar Association, National Center for State Courts, campaign reform experts, and others have praised the new program as a national model," Gulley added. "The new law will work - but only if people participate in the check-off. It's the best way to say, 'Yes, judges should have an independent source of clean money for their campaigns and voters should have more information about the candidates seeking to serve on our highest courts.' "

Click here to view charts (PDF format) showing 1) Funds raised by appellate court candidates in 2002 election that would be restricted in 2004, and 2) Spending by candidates for appellate court seats in NC 1998-2002.