Democracy North Carolina Blog » Judicial Elections

LOD: Justice Over Bias

Bob Hall — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:53:46 +0000

In a historic decision today, Superior Court Judge Gregory Weeks found that prosecutors deliberately excluded qualified black jurors from serving on the jury in the case of death row inmate Marcus Robinson. The hearing was the first to apply North Carolina’s landmark Racial Justice Act. Following the law’s directives, the judge resentenced Robinson to life without the possibility of parole because unrefuted evidence showed that racial discrimination infected Robinson’s prosecution, consistent with a broader statistical pattern of racial bias in jury selection across the state. “The evidence should serve as a clear signal of the need for reform in capital jury selection proceedings in the future,” said the Cumberland County judge. “The very integrity of the court is jeopardized when a prosecutor’s discrimination invites cynicism respecting the jury’s neutrality and undermines public confidence.” The 167-page decision is here. The decision offers hope that a broken system at the heart of a democratic society can be rebuilt to treat everyone fairly.

LOD: Justice at Stake

Bob Hall — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:33:42 +0000

A trio of groups that analyze judicial elections today released a report documenting a national campaign “to intimidate America’s state judges into becoming accountable to money and ideologies instead of the Constitution and the law.” The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2010 examines the “hostile takeover” of judicial elections by special interests and the attacks on impartial courts by state legislatures. The report was written by the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

North Carolina is held up as a national model because it provides state judicial candidates with a viable public financing alternative to the private money chase. The pioneering program has earned acclaim from reformers, the American Bar Association, and NC judges across the political spectrum. A blog entry today by Mark Binker at the Greensboro News & Record notes that Republican leaders in the NC General Assembly plan to keep the program, but delete a rescue-funds provision that mirrors one struck down by the US Supreme Court. The public grants and a state voter guide are not funded from the NC General Fund. A similar program for some Council of State offices will be suspended because it only has money from the General Fund; efforts last year to provide an independent source of funding for that Voter-Owned Elections program were stymied.

LOD: Suing on the Money

Bob Hall — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:55:17 +0000

Anti-public financing lawyer James Bopp has filed a lawsuit to make North Carolina abandon part of the “voter-owned elections” program for state judicial candidates. It’s the part that awards candidates in the public program extra money if their privately financed opponents spend beyond a certain limit. But the US Supreme Court has already ruled that a similar matching funds provision in Arizona is illegal, and NC regulators say they have no intent of using the NC version of the provision. In fact, on Thursday, the State Board of Elections ordered the Town of Chapel Hill to abandon the provision in its program for municipal candidates in 2011. So why did Bopp file his lawsuit? Maybe he wants to make a point: He had challenged this provision years ago and the federal courts repeatedly ruled against him and his client, the NC Right to Life organization. But now that Chief Justice John Roberts is in charge, facts and precedent matter less than ideology and politics. As a result, James Bopp has been on a roll; he’s the same attorney who brought the Citizens United case to the Supremes. In his current suit against North Carolina, he also wants to collect attorney’s fees – and some say his suit may just be a way to get a judge to award him a million dollars or more for the expenses of his previous NC suits that failed. Hmm . . . J. Bopp, a publicly financed lawyer.

LOD: Justice for All of Us?

Bob Hall — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:23:05 +0000

The racial bias of too many elected white judges and state legislators continues to undermine America’s promise of fair courts and representative government. The opening of the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial is the occasion of a series of essays by the American Constitution Society, including one by Sherrilyn Ifill about elected judges in Alabama preserving the ways of the Old South. The judges are routinely overriding the decisions of juries in their courtrooms by handing down death sentences, most often in cases involving a black defendant and white victim. The essay points out that in 1957, King proclaimed, “Give us the ballot and we will place judges on the benches of the South who will do justly and love mercy.” But old biases among voters, mostly whites, have yet to be overcome – and society suffers as a result. State legislators across the country, mostly whites engaging in race-tinged fear mongering, are creating new barriers to voting that also have a discriminatory effect and weaken democracy overall. South Carolina recently passed its harsh version of a photo ID requirement for voters, stirring protests and legal complaints. The US Justice Department is at least asking lots of questions before it “preclears” South Carolina’s new law. Strong organizing in the state has put a face on those who will be cheated out of their constitutional right to vote by the guardians of reactionary values – more than 50 years after King’s call to end ballot barriers.

LOD: Supremes Veto Rescue Funds

Bob Hall — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 02:01:34 +0000

The US Supreme Court issued its expected 5-to-4 rejection of the matching or rescue funds provision in Arizona’s public campaign financing program. Some worried that the activist justices would overreach (as they did in the Citizens United decision) and find some means to outlaw public financing altogether. That didn’t happen; maybe the public’s outrage over the CU decision had an effect. In his opinion for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts proclaimed that public financing programs are indeed constitutional and their “wisdom” is “none of our business,” i.e., not a question for the courts to settle. The dissenting opinion on matching funds, written by Justice Kagan, is especially worth reading – beginning on page 37 of the ruling. Here’s one link to the ruling, highlights of Kagan’s dissent and a number of statements about the impact of the case. Other models of public financing, particularly the multiple match for small-dollar donations (as used in New York City and the proposed Fair Elections Now Act), will likely get a boost from the decision. Statements from the NC Center for Voter Education and Justice at Stake suggest that rescue funds in programs for judicial elections may be viewed differently by the Supreme Court, but even if not, a public financing option can and should be offered to protect us from the consequences of justice for sale.

LOD: Judicial Public Financing

Bob Hall — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 01:29:41 +0000

The same rightwing law firm that engineered the Citizens United decision also attacked North Carolina’s judicial public financing program a few years ago; they took their challenge all the way to the US Supreme Court and lost. Now they’re representing a “right to life” group in Wisconsin, claiming that state’s new judicial program (modeled on ours) is unconstitutional. Democracy North Carolina and others have signed onto an amicus brief supporting the public’s right to sponsor a viable public campaign financing option, especially for judicial elections. Because judges have a constitutional duty to be impartial, there is a “compelling government interest” in preventing even the appearance of bias or corruption. The brief says this interest even justifies some public financing provisions that might be struck down for programs covering other elective offices – particularly the “rescue” or matching funds provision that helps enrolled candidates keep up with their opponent’s spending against them. The Supreme Court recently heard a case challenging Arizona’s system of providing matching funds (the McComish v. Bennett case). Most observers expect a 5-to-4 decision very soon that will throw out the matching-funds provision as an unconstitutional burden on the “free speech” (i.e., fundraising) of privately financed candidates. But even with the expected hostile decision, North Carolina’s judicial public financing program can continue, maybe without its rescue funds provision or maybe we’ll provide another test case.

LOD: The Up-Chuck Bill

Bob Hall — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:37:55 +0000

A hodgepodge of anti-voter bills resurfaced this afternoon in the House Committee on Elections as a single 44-page proposal, without warning or even a summary of its complex contents for committee members. Republican chair David Lewis wanted the bill voted on that afternoon. Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Wake County) called the process “legislative malfeasance,” and others said the heavy-handed maneuver violated the Republicans’ promise to run the General Assembly with transparency and due process in contrast to past Democratic regimes. Among other things, the up-chuck bill would slice a week off Early Voting, ban Sunday voting, cap individual donations to political parties at $250,000 but allow unlimited corporate money to finance party operations, end the requirement for county boards of election to conduct annual voter awareness and registration campaigns, eliminate straight-ticket voting, kill the Council of State public financing program, make all judicial races partisan, enact a weak pay-to-play prohibition affecting state vendors, kick out the current chair of the State Board of Elections this September, and more. Ironically, the Democrats outnumbered Republicans when Rep. Lewis called for the committee vote, and the bill was defeated – but in a quick move, Lewis voted No, too, so he could later “move to reconsider the previous vote,” a maneuver only available for the No voters. The bill will soon get its favorable vote in the House Committee on Elections and move along its forced march through the General Assembly chambers to the governor’s desk, where it deserves her Veto stamp.

LOD: Update on Photo ID, Other Bills

Bob Hall — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:16:03 +0000

The photo ID bill, known by opponents as the “Voter Suppression Act,” passed its final House vote by a party line vote of 68 to 48. The goal of Democracy North Carolina and other voting rights groups has been to keep the conservatives’ margin of victory small enough to send a message to Gov. Bev Perdue that her veto of this bill could be sustained. We succeeded: The Republicans needed to gain support from at least four House Democrats, as they did with their budget, but they failed. The bill now goes to the Senate for passage next week and then to the governor for, we hope, her veto. Meanwhile, a host of other bills are crossing from one chamber to other, and Republican leaders will be prioritizing what they want passed by next weekend’s anticipated adjournment. Among the bills in play are those to preserve the judicial public financing program but change to partisan judicial elections; end the Council of State public financing program; create an independent redistricting process modeled on Iowa’s, beginning with 2020; slice a week off Early Voting; end straight-party ticket voting; merge the State Board of Elections’ campaign finance division, the State Ethics Commission, and the Secretary of State’s lobbying division into one agency under the control of General Assembly leaders; add rapid disclosure of campaign donations received in the weeks before the General Assembly convenes; make it easier for third parties to have candidates on the ballot . . . .

Take action to protect voting rights:

katy — Wed, 11 May 2011 18:53:09 +0000

We are writing to alert you to a new attack against basic voting rights in North Carolina. A new bill in the NC Senate would eliminate Same-Day Registration and youth pre-registration, slice a week off Early Voting, end Sunday voting, and require other changes that will make it much harder for millions of NC citizens to vote. We will fight this bill (S-657) and keep you updated about what you can do to help.

Right now, we are asking you to:

Sign up for our special action alerts on voting rights issues if you are interested in getting more involved. Visit http://bit.ly/l7GF8g to sign up.
Learn more about this bill and similar bills at our on-line Take Action Center: http://bit.ly/ilytg1. You’ll find information on the bills, flyers, action ideas and resources for both individuals and groups.

Also, please be aware that NC’s nationally-acclaimed public campaign programs for statewide judicial and Council of State candidates are under attack. Last week, Republican legislators attempted to eliminate them during the budget debate. Fortunately, Reps. Rick Glazier, Joe Hackney, Grier Martin and Deborah Ross courageously defended the programs and the attempt was withdrawn — for now. View video coverage of the debate at http://bit.ly/lJ4tsU.

We urge you to forward this email to others and to encourage them to visit our on-line Voting Rights Action Center at http://bit.ly/ilytg1.

We remain committed to “of, by and for the people,”
Your Democracy NC Team

P.S.: As we’ve documented often in our Link-of-the-Day reports, these bills are being pushed by NC House and Senate members who were elected thanks to millions in campaign contributions from ultra-conservative groups funded by NC retail millionaire, Art Pope. Learn more about his influence over NC politics at http://bit.ly/hDG9mX.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Bob Hall — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:01:12 +0000

If you’re doing your taxes this weekend (or later), don’t forget to check the $3 question on the NC income tax form about the NC Public Campaign Fund. Checking YES does not change your tax or refund; it just transfers $3 to the Fund from what you’re paying anyway. The Fund pays for the judicial voter guide and helps statewide judicial candidates who accept strict spending and fundraising limits. The program has been highly successful and the model for others in New Mexico, Wisconsin and West Virginia. Unfortunately, a large number of tax preparers will not check the $3 box or ask the taxpayer; you must look over their shoulder and tell them to “Check the 3 for NC.” (A separate $3 check-off on the NC form will send $3 to the political party of your choice, so don’t be confused. There are two check-offs, one for a political party fund and one for the Public Campaign Fund.)

Friday, March 25, 2011

Bob Hall — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:53:10 +0000

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday about the constitutionality of the matching (or rescue) funds provision in Arizona’s public financing program. We have a similar provision in our North Carolina programs, so the ultimate decision (expected in late summer) will affect us, too. The Brennan Center has an overview of the issues in the McComish v. Bennett case, plus links to various resources; and Justice at Stake calls attention to the decision’s impact on judicial public financing programs, like the one we have in North Carolina. Even if the Supremes rule against a government program providing rescue funds to qualified candidates, that does not mean the end of public financing. The New York City system and the federal Fair Elections Now Act are models of programs that provide adequate resources for a candidate without relying on that provision.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Bob Hall — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:00:37 +0000

A poll of North Carolina voters indicates a large majority believe campaign contributions influence how judges rule in cases. By a 2.5-to-1 ratio, voters would also look unfavorably on state legislators who voted to eliminate North Carolina’s innovative judicial public financing program. The press release highlights a number of other questions in the poll sponsored by the NC Center for Voter Education and Justice At Stake.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Bob Hall — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:28:41 +0000

What can be done about the unhealthy role of large private contributions in judicial elections? North Carolina led the nation by modifying the “clean elections” model of public financing to apply to judicial campaigns. In contrast to providing a positive alternative, New York is about to impose a new restriction on judges: you must not hear cases involving attorneys or parties in the dispute who have given more than $2,500 in the previous two years to your campaign. The New York Times article gives a good overview of the recent history of big money’s damaging influence in judicial elections, with multiple links. New York’s Administrative Board of the Courts adopted the ban on judges hearing certain cases as a means to protect the integrity of the court system. “Nothing could be more important for the judiciary than to have the public see that we’re neutral arbiters of disputes,” said Jonathan Lippman, the state’s chief judge. “If we don’t have that, we don’t have anything.”

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Bob Hall — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:06:20 +0000

Court Wars: For people interested in following the politics of advancing an independent, yet accountable judicial system in the United States, we recommend you subscribe to GavelGrab. Recent entries range from the call for a judge to recuse herself in the Rahm Emanual residency dispute, to a review of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s speech to the Tea Party Caucus in Congress. GavelGrab is the blog of Justice At State, a federation of nonpartisan national and local groups promoting fair courts. You can also occasionally check in with its special page featuring entries about public campaign financing and the courts. Several recent entries provide updates on judicial public financing programs now beginning in Wisconsin and West Virginia, as well as ours in North Carolina.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Bob Hall — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:40:38 +0000

For better or worse, a gaggle of “firsts” this year will have a lasting impact on North Carolina politics. Here’s the Top 10 list from Democracy North Carolina. Happy New Year!!