Enter Last Name
Select Jurisdiction
(superior courts/trial-level/county level/)
u.s. (administrative law/fed.)
u.s. (administrative law/state)
u.s. (bankruptcy judge)
u.s. (bankruptcy trustee)
u.s. (federal appellate/circuit)
u.s. (federal)
u.s. (immigration appellate/bia)
u.s. (immigration)
u.s. (municipal/town/local/village)
u.s. (state supreme)
u.s. (state/appellate)
u.s. (surrogate)
u.s. (tax /state)
u.s. (tax/fed.)
u.s. (workers compensation)
u.s. supreme
u.s. virgin islands
canada [alberta]
canada [british columbia]
canada [federal]
canada [manitoba]
canada [municipal/local/town/village]
canada [new brunswick]
canada [newfoundland]
canada [northwest territories]
canada [nova scotia]
canada [nunavut]
canada [ontario]
canada [prince edward island]
canada [quebec]
canada [saskatchewan]
canada [supreme court]
canada [yukon]
antigua and barbuda
australia {new south wales}
australia {nothern territory}
australia {queensland}
australia {south australia}
australia {tasmania}
australia {victoria}
australia {western australia}
cayman islands
india (appellate co-op)
india (appellate labor)
india (bombay high court)
india (calcutta high court)
india (city civil)
india (delhi high court)
india (district/tehsil)
india (guwahati high court)
india (haryana high court)
india (labor)
india (madras high court)
india (motor accident tribunal)
india (rail accident tribunal)
india (rajasthan/jaipur)
india (revenue tribunal)
india (sessions)
india (supreme court)
india (tax)
international tribunal for the law of the sea
netherlands
new zealand / north island
new zealand / south island
northern ireland
northern mariana islands
philippines
puerto rico
south africa (eastern cape)
south africa (eastern transvaal)
south africa (kowazulu/natal)
south africa (lesotho)
south africa (north-west )
south africa (northern cape)
south africa (northern transvaal)
south africa (orange free state)
south africa (pretoria)
south africa (swaziland)
south africa (western cape)
switzerland
trinidad & tobago
world court (icj)
_international criminal court (icc)
Upload video here
Enter Last Name
Select Jurisdiction
(superior courts/trial-level/county level/)
u.s. (administrative law/fed.)
u.s. (administrative law/state)
u.s. (bankruptcy judge)
u.s. (bankruptcy trustee)
u.s. (federal appellate/circuit)
u.s. (federal)
u.s. (immigration appellate/bia)
u.s. (immigration)
u.s. (municipal/town/local/village)
u.s. (state supreme)
u.s. (state/appellate)
u.s. (surrogate)
u.s. (tax /state)
u.s. (tax/fed.)
u.s. (workers compensation)
u.s. supreme
u.s. virgin islands
canada [alberta]
canada [british columbia]
canada [federal]
canada [manitoba]
canada [municipal/local/town/village]
canada [new brunswick]
canada [newfoundland]
canada [northwest territories]
canada [nova scotia]
canada [nunavut]
canada [ontario]
canada [prince edward island]
canada [quebec]
canada [saskatchewan]
canada [supreme court]
canada [yukon]
antigua and barbuda
australia {new south wales}
australia {nothern territory}
australia {queensland}
australia {south australia}
australia {tasmania}
australia {victoria}
australia {western australia}
cayman islands
india (appellate co-op)
india (appellate labor)
india (bombay high court)
india (calcutta high court)
india (city civil)
india (delhi high court)
india (district/tehsil)
india (guwahati high court)
india (haryana high court)
india (labor)
india (madras high court)
india (motor accident tribunal)
india (rail accident tribunal)
india (rajasthan/jaipur)
india (revenue tribunal)
india (sessions)
india (supreme court)
india (tax)
international tribunal for the law of the sea
netherlands
new zealand / north island
new zealand / south island
northern ireland
northern mariana islands
philippines
puerto rico
south africa (eastern cape)
south africa (eastern transvaal)
south africa (kowazulu/natal)
south africa (lesotho)
south africa (north-west )
south africa (northern cape)
south africa (northern transvaal)
south africa (orange free state)
south africa (pretoria)
south africa (swaziland)
south africa (western cape)
switzerland
trinidad & tobago
world court (icj)
_international criminal court (icc)
Upload video here
JURISDICTION
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
04/08/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
04/08/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
04/08/2015
U.S. (BANKRUPTCY JUDGE)
04/08/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
04/07/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
04/07/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
04/06/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
04/06/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
04/03/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
04/01/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
03/31/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
03/31/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
03/30/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
03/30/2015
U.S. (MUNICIPAL/TOWN/LOCAL/VILLAGE)
03/28/2015
(SUPERIOR COURTS/TRIAL-LEVEL/COUNTY LEVEL/)
03/27/2015
Most Recent Videos
Candidates
Incumbents
ClipTiquesFrom Ballotpedia
North Carolina judicial elections, 2014
Total candidates:
Primary candidates:
General election candidates:
Incumbency
Incumbents:
Incumbent success rate:
Competition - general election
Percent of candidates in contested races:
Percent uncontested:
The North Carolina judicial elections occur every even-numbered year and, though they are nonpartisan, the higher-level, appellate court races are often competitive with clearly drawn partisan lines. Among the many seats up for election this year, voters chose candidates to fill four seats on the .
gained one seat on the , with 's victory over the recently appointed Justice
Still, as the Republican-to-Democratic justice ratio changes from 5-2 to 4-3, there will remain a majority of
on the court.
A recount was requested in the race between Justice
(R). Beasley maintained a 3,991-vote lead once all precincts had reported on election night. Recount results placed Beasley 5,410 votes ahead of Robinson, confirming her victory.
In total, 233 judicial candidates ran for election in North Carolina this year. 126 were incumbents and 104 were unopposed.
February 28: Filing deadline
May 6: Primary
November 4: General election
In addition to candidate lists, this page includes information about , as well as articles about
in races across the state.
Want to learn more about the biggest judicial elections in North Carolina? Check out the
page for an in-depth exploration of the candidates, issues, politics and news surrounding the state's high court races.
(I) denotes incumbent
Supreme Court, Chief Justice
(I), 72.2%
Supreme Court, Beasley Seat
(I), 50.1%
Supreme Court, Hudson Seat
(I), 52.5%
Supreme Court, Martin Seat
(I), 47.4%
Court of Appeals, Davis Seat
(I), 58.8%
Court of Appeals, Hunter Seat
Court of Appeals, Martin seat, special election
Third Division of the Superior Court, 15A Judicial District, Johnson seat
Fifth Division Superior Court, 21A Judicial District
Sixth Division of the Superior Court, 19A Judicial District
Seventh Division of the Superior Court, 25A Judicial District
(I), 45.7%
Seventh Division of the Superior Court, 25B Judicial District
Seventh Division of the Superior Court, 26B Judicial District, Seat 2
Seventh Division of the Superior Court, 26C Judicial District
(I), 57.1%
3A Judicial District, Hilburn Seat
(I), 68.0%
3A Judicial District, Teague Seat
(I), 52.2%
5th Judicial District, Blackmore Seat
5th Judicial District, Crouch Seat
(I), 53.1%
7A and 7BC Judicial Districts, Harper Seat
10th Judicial District, Fullwood Seat
10th Judicial District, Meyer Seat
(I), 51.8%
11th Judicial District, Corbett Seat
11th Judicial District, Stewart Seat
(I), 58.5%
12th Judicial District, Franks Seat
12th Judicial District, Keever Seat
12th Judicial District, Reaves Seat
(I), 38.5%
13th Judicial District, Prince Seat
(I), 43.5%
14th Judicial District, Evans Seat
14th Judicial District, Gordon Seat
(I), 46.9%
14th Judicial District, Walker Seat
(I), 61.4%
15A Judicial District, Allen Seat
17A Judicial District, Allen Seat
17A Judicial District, Wilkins Seat
(I), 49.9%
19A Judicial District, Cloninger Seat
(I), 63.2%
19A Judicial District, Johnson Seat
19A Judicial District, McGee Seat
(I), 55.8%
19B Judicial District, Heafner Seat
(I), 42.3%
19C Judicial District, Kluttz Seat
20A Judicial District, New Seat
21st Judicial District, New Seat
22A Judicial District, Church Seat
(I), 53.6%
23rd Judicial District, Duncan Seat
25th Judicial District, Hayes Seat
26th Judicial District, Nixon Seat
(I), 43.5%
26th Judicial District, Viser Seat
(I), 41.9%
28th Judicial District, Clontz Seat
(I), 52.9%
The following candidates ran unopposed in the general election.
CourtCandidateClick the arrows in the column headings to sort columns alphabetically.CourtCandidateClick the arrows in the column headings to sort columns alphabetically. of the
Judicial Districts,
Judicial Districts of the
Judicial Districts,
Judicial Districts of the
For candidate lists and results from the judicial primary on May 6, 2014, please see: .
Five Things to Know About Election Changes in North Carolina
participate in
in even-numbered years. If more than two candidates apply for the same position, they must run in the primary election. The two candidates with the highest votes in the primary advance to the general election. However, if there are only one or two candidates, they are automatically advanced to the general election.
In some situations, there may also be a second primary, which is similar to a runoff election in other states. The potential for a second primary depends on whether the candidates in a particular race receive a "substantial plurality," or at least 40% of the vote. That 40% is required for a primary candidate to be nominated to the general election. Thus, if there are only two candidates running for a single seat, at least one of them will receive this substantial plurality and a second primary is not necessary. However, if there are multiple candidates running for one seat in the primary and no candidate receives at least 40% of the vote, the top two candidates advance to a second primary, though the second-place candidate must request such a primary.
In 2014, no second primaries for judicial offices were requested, though there were two primary races where no candidates received a substantial majority (, Clontz seat and , Teague seat).
The filing fees for judicial candidates amount to approximately 1% of the annual salary for the office sought by the candidates. In lieu of this fee, a candidate may file a petition signed by at least 5% of the registered voters for the area in which the candidate is seeking election.
To run for judge in North Carolina, a candidate must be at least 21 years old, a registered voter, and a resident of the district in which they seek to run at the time of filing.
The following articles were current as of the dates listed, though new developments may not be included.
September 11, 2014Click for story→See also:
Two North Carolina judicial candidates vying for the same seat have had a change of heart about their political allegiance - and switched parties.
Judge Sherry Prince
are both running for an open seat on the . Though
judicial elections are nonpartisan, both candidates chose to publicly change their political affiliations in the middle of the campaign from
Gore formally switched his party to Republican on August 15. He did so, he says, because he is "a conservative at heart" and his conscience demanded it. He cited his time in the National Guard and working for
District Attorney Jon David, a member of the GOP, as being influential in his decision.
Willie Fred Gore
His opponent, Prince, is the incumbent and was appointed to the bench by Democratic governor . Prince is also a former
Democratic party chair. When asked why she made the switch, Prince said that she was "deeply troubled by the current Federal administration's deviation from the policies and practices with which I had always been comfortable as a moderate Democrat." She went on to state that she has re-examined her personal beliefs and philosophies and find that they are better in line with the Republican platform. Current Democratic party chair Leonard Jenkins said that Prince did not discuss her switch with the party before making it.
In an official statement, Prince was quick to assure voters that her political party has nothing to do with her job as a judge. She said she will uphold the law and support all who appear in her courtroom regardless of political party. She ended her official statement with the following: "As a candidate for re-election in a nonpartisan race, I seek the support and vote of Republicans, Democrats and Unaffiliated voters alike."
August 28, 2014Click for story→See also:
decided that he didn't have to wait until the November election to, in a way, "cast his vote" in two
races. He did that by exercising his right to appoint judges to vacancies, quickly making two candidates incumbents.
was appointed to serve as chief justice of the supreme court and
was appointed to replace Martin as an associate justice. Both candidates were already running for election to those seats and will now gain the advantage of being listed as an incumbent on the November ballots.
Justice Mark Martin
On August 18, 2014, Gov. McCrory appointed Justice , a senior associate justice, to the chief justice position on the state's supreme court. Martin is running for election to that position in November against Senior Resident Superior Court Judge . His appointment is effective September 1, so he will have approximately one month of incumbency before the election.
Regarding Martin's appointment, the governor stated:
I look forward to his work as Chief Justice as he draws upon his more than 20 years of judicial experience.
Martin's opponent, Judge Lewis, was not pleased. She said the appointment was "nothing more than pure politics in an effort to give my opponent an advantage—the upper hand—in the race." However, she still showed confidence in her chances, stating:
People are offended when the choice is made for them. I believe people want to exercise their right to vote. Mark Martin will have the distinct honor of being the shortest-serving chief justice in the state of North Carolina.
Martin was endorsed by the North Carolina Republican Party earlier in the year. Lewis, though formerly a Democrat, has been a registered Republican since 2003.
Judge Bob Hunter
The race to fill Martin's seat was set to be one between two colleagues from the . That will change once
assumes office as a supreme court justice on September 6, 2014. Hunter was appointed on August 20 by Governor McCrory.
Hunter will face Judge
in November. Ervin previously ran for election to the supreme court in 2012, but lost to
in an expensive race. Though North Carolina's judicial elections are nonpartisan, Ervin is considered to be a , while Hunter is considered to be a .
Governor McCrory's appointments are likely to give his fellow Republican judges an advantage. Republicans in North Carolina, in addition to the seat of the governor, also have a majority in both legislative houses, as well as on the supreme court. This is called a . The court is currently composed of four Republican-leaning justices and four Democratic-leaning justices. The three of the four seats up for election in 2014 are currently held by Democrats. The fact that a majority of the seats on the court are up for election this year means that the partisan balance could flip. However, that is unlikely, due to the fact that it would require Democrats to win all four seats.
August 21, 2014Click for story→See also:
voters looking over their November ballots may find themselves overwhelmed when asked to choose between no fewer than nineteen
candidates.
of the , retired on August 1—narrowly missing the spring and summer primaries that had already determined which judicial candidates would face off this fall.
Under state law, any qualified candidates hoping to replace him are to instead bypass the primaries altogether and appear directly on the general election ballot.
Since the law puts no limit on how many candidates may throw their hats in the ring, the fluke of timing has allowed nineteen judicial hopefuls to compete.
In a race this crowded, a candidate receiving even 6% of the vote may walk away the winner, a situation which an editorial in the Raleigh News & Observer calls "laughable."
Equating the election to "closing our eyes and randomly pulling a name out of a hat," the editorial expresses doubt that voters will (or can, even) diligently research each candidate and choose the best person for the job.
Name recognition is often the biggest factor in judicial elections, but the sheer volume of candidates may discourage citizens from selecting a new court of appeals judge or even discourage them from voting in other relevant races on that portion of the ballot.
Though rare, a situation like this is not unprecedented in states that utilize .
A number of states opt instead for a method of , perhaps with assistance from a , to avoid scenarios where voters are asked to choose between candidates they know nothing about.
Judicial election advocates would argue, however, that it is a right of the people at large to determine who administers justice in their state.
July 24, 2014Click for story→See also:
North Carolina voters will get an extra election on their November ballots following a recent retirement announcement by one of the state's top judges. , Chief Judge of the , will retire from the bench on August 1, 2014. Though Governor
may appoint a temporary replacement, the official judge for that role must be chosen by voters in the general election.
In this special election, since there is no primary to narrow down the number of candidates, the person who receives the most votes will win. Depending on how many candidates file to run for the seat, the new judge could win with a small percentage of the overall vote.
Three seats are already up for election on the state's court of appeals. Judge
is seeking his first full term, facing opposition from .
will compete to replace retiring Judge . Lastly, Judge
is unopposed for re-election. The addition of the special election for Martin's seat means that approximately 27% of the seats on the North Carolina Court of Appeals are up for election in 2014.
July 3, 2014Click for story→See also:
New voting laws passed by the
and the Governor last year will begin to go into effect this November unless opponents of the laws are successful in federal court. The U.S. Department of Justice, the North Carolina NAACP, and others, have filed for a preliminary injunction that would stop the changes from taking place in the upcoming election.
The law, known as the Voter Information Verification Act, was passed soon after the
ruled on , striking a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required required states with a history of discrimination to have any changes to their voting process examined by the Justice Department. Once North Carolina was able to move forward on voting law changes without such a restriction, they did so.
The new law requires a photo ID in order to vote. Though that is the most divisive issue, it will not take effect until 2016. This year, the law is set to: reduce the early voting period by 7 days, eliminate some same-day voter registration during early voting, cause ballots cast in the right county but wrong precinct to be discarded, and allow voters to challenge each other's right to vote, among other things.
Rev. William Barber, the president of the state's NAACP, called the act a "monster voter suppression law." The Obama administration and others who oppose the law say that it disenfranchises minority citizens.
However, groups like Judicial Watch and, often, Republicans argue that the new laws provide a more reliable voting system by eliminating fraud. Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, said, "It is high time that the Obama administration comes into line with the majority of the American people who want to strengthen rather than weaken ballot box integrity."
During the May primary, a sort of dry run was held in which poll workers asked voters some questions about photo ID's, even though voters were not required to have one to cast a ballot. Though this was not a scientific study and some confusion was reported, 75% of those polled said the instructions regarding voter ID's were clear. However, 44% of the voters polled said that the changes actually made them feel less confident in the fairness of the voting rules. Broken down further by ethnicity, a minority of both black and white voters felt the rules made them feel more confident in the s 44% of white voters and 20% of black voters said it increased their confidence in the system. It is helpful to keep in mind that primary elections often attract fewer voters than general elections, so the opinions of November's voters could be different.
The case will go to U.S. District Judge , who will rule on the proposed preliminary injunction.
May 8, 2014Click for story→See also:
Amidst the slew of primary races that were decided in various states on May 6, 2014, one race stood out--the primary contest for Justice
seat on the . Recent elections to that court have not been mellow affairs and often featured heavy spending and partisan conflicts. The race for Hudson's seat was especially anticipated as it was the only primary race for a seat on the state's high court this year. Some speculated that the two
candidates running against Hudson, a , could encourage a large Republican turnout and eliminate the incumbent from the competition. In the state's judicial elections, the two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary advance to the general election.
Hudson did make it past the primary and will maintain her incumbent advantage against
in the general election. She received 42.5% of the votes, while Levinson received 36.6% and
was eliminated with 20.9%. After election night, in spite of earlier speculations, it was reported that Democrats accounted for approximately 42% of the voters, while Republicans represented about 31%.
In other races for superior and district judge seats, candidates were also narrowed down to two per race. The winners of each primary are listed below:
Superior courts:
will compete in the general election.
District courts:
will advance to the general election.
will challenge incumbent
for her seat in the general election.
will challenge incumbent
for her seat in the general election.
will face off in the general election.
will advance to the general election.
in the general election.
will challenge incumbent
in the general election.
will oppose incumbent
in the general election.
For the full list of general election match-ups, see: North Carolina judicial elections, 2014.
May 1, 2014Click for story→:See also:
The race for Justice 's seat on the
is the only supreme court race in the state that will include a primary election. That election will be held on May 6, 2014 and its outcome could have big implications.
candidates in the primary, voter turnout from that party is expected to be high. The local politics blog Lady Liberty 1885 pointed out that this could even cause Hudson to lose her seat, since only two candidates may advance from the primary. If Republican voters turn out in force to support either of their two candidates--superior court judge
or --it could counteract Hudson's incumbent advantage. Additionally, a slew of Republican candidates are running in the state's
election, hoping for a chance to face Democratic Senator
in the fall. That race is also expected to encourage more Republican participation in the primary and put Hudson at a disadvantage.
However, the stakes are high for the Democrats, too, as they must win three of the four total races this year to maintain their current minority on the high court. The party hopes to replace the retiring Chief Justice , who is widely known as a Democrat, with another ally on the court.
The import of this primary is supported by the amount of money flowing into the race already. Businesses such as Reynolds American, Koch Industries and various Blue Cross/Blue Shield groups have helped fund Hudson's opposition. This is not an unusual phenomenon, as there are no spending or fundraising limits on third-party groups in North Carolina, where candidates are limited to $5,000 in contributions, per donor. Therefore, much of the spending is from outside groups. This is the second North Carolina judicial election in a row that has seen increased levels of partisan spending and interest from groups outside .
Two groups in particular have used those funds to try to unseat Hudson in the primary. The independent public action committee (PAC) North Carolina Chamber IE had, as of April 30, put $225,000 into TV ads supporting Doran and Levinson. This was partially funded by Koch Industries, which contributed $50,000 to the chamber's PAC this year.
The group Justice for All North Carolina, which received a $650,000 donation from the , has aired attack ads against Hudson that accuse her of "not being tough on child molesters." Koch Industries is also a donor to the Republican Committee, giving $359,940 to that organization this year.
The negative ad refers to Hudson's dissenting opinion in State v. Bowditch. Hudson was in the minority on the ruling, which was 4-3. Decided by the court in 2010, the case addressed the issue of a law enacted by the legislature which required convicted sex offenders to wear an ankle monitor which would track their movements, via satellite, even after they've completed their sentence. Three convicted sex-offenders objected to having the law applied in their cases because they were prosecuted before the law took effect. A majority of the court said the law could be applied retroactively. However, Hudson and two others on the court disagreed, finding that applying the law to those who were convicted before the statute was enacted violated their constitutional rights.
Apart from independent groups, the candidates themselves have been gearing up. As of the most recent campaign contributions report on April 19, Hudson boasted $238,172 in total receipts to her campaign. She trailed Levinson, who had raised $263,523. Doran reported $11,536. Altogether, it is the costliest judicial race in the state so far.
May 1, 2014Click for story→See also:
The North Carolina Bar Association ranks candidates in the state's judicial races, and the group released its report for the May 6 primary last week. This is the second year the association has done such a survey, the first one having been conducted in 2012.
The association ranked judges in all nine trial court races that have primaries. Eight of the primaries this year are
races, and the last race is for the . There are 32 candidates running in all, four of them incumbents.
More than 2,500 attorneys responded to the survey which asked for evaluations of the candidates in six categories: integrity and impartiality, legal ability, professionalism, communication, administrative skills and overall performance. The categories were rated one through five, with five being the highest.
In the superior court race, three lawyers are running to replace , who is vacating his seat. The candidates are: ,
and . Gottlieb, a partner at Kilpatrick Townsend, received a 4.76, the highest overall score of all the candidates. Taylor, an attorney with Donna Taylor Law, PLLC, had a 2.58, the lowest score overall. Rubain, a partner at Quander Rubain, earned a score of 4.15. View the full survey .
The North Carolina Bar Association said in a news release that it believes the state is the only one that comprehensively evaluates all trial court candidates. Officials say the survey is meant to help people make decisions in the nonpartisan races.
April 3, 2014Click for story→See also:
Recent changes to judicial campaign finance rules will allow private donors and big-money interests to unduly influence the makeup of the
judiciary, according to a group of current
Associate Justice , along with judges
of the , spoke at a
Party fundraising event in Morehead City. The trio warned that voters will have to be especially careful to conduct thorough research prior to heading to the polls to cast their ballots for judicial candidates this year. This is because a Republican supermajority in the
passed a law in January, ending the state's publicly-financed campaign system. The system had limited campaign expenditures and was financed with attorney fees the state collected, to eliminate the need to seek private donations in judicial races. Critics fear the changes open up the possibility that moneyed interests, including out-of-state groups, can outspend opponents to achieve partisan outcomes.
At the Democratic Party event, the judges voiced concerns that the changes will affect the impartiality of judges who could be beholden to political interests to raise campaign cash. They stressed the importance of an independent judiciary that has no ideological agenda. “A judge takes the law as it is and tries to make sure that it is fairly and impartially applied for the benefit of all citizens,” argued Judge Ervin.
Four of the
seven seats are up for grabs in this election cycle, raising the very real possibility that heavy private campaign spending could win a majority on the bench. The changes in finance rules were part of a contentious bill that included a provision to require voter ID at the polls. The panel of judges exhorted voters to be diligent when voting, making sure to know the judicial candidates on the ballot, rather than leaving them blank. "The message is: please don’t forget the judges," said Judge Davis.
March 20, 2014Click for story→See also:
Four seats are up for election on the
in 2014. In the 2012 election, only one seat was on the ballot. Incumbent
faced off against challenger , but the race turned out to be a pricey one, as far as state judicial elections go, with almost $4 million dollars being spent on the race. Quite a bit of the money came from independent groups rather than the war chests of the candidates.
However, 2014's races promise to be different because in 2013 the state decided to stop providing public funding for judicial candidates. With public financing, a candidate had to raise a certain threshold amount. They were then able to receive public money to help finance their campaign. The money they could raise and spend was capped. In 2014, there will be no limit to the amount a candidate can raise or spend. The catch is, each candidate must raise all their own funds.
Experts have estimated a supreme court candidate will need to raise at least a million dollars to mount a competitive campaign. John Hood, president of the John Locke Foundation, believes making candidates raise the money they need for their campaigns is a good thing. He has argued that since candidates for the
are running for a statewide seat, it takes more than $350,000 to mount an effective campaign.
While it might be a good thing for candidates to raise their own money, the task is time-consuming and can have judges asking for money from lawyers and businesses who might later appear before them in court. Because independent groups are able to pump money into the supreme court races, the campaign process is causing some to question how fair and impartial justices on the state's highest court can be if they're forced to ask for money to get elected. Incumbent Justice 's campaign consultants have advised her she needs to raise as much as 2 million dollars to keep her seat on the court. Her days will have to be lengthened to allow her to fit in time to do her work on the court and put in time making calls to raise money for her campaign. In an interview, Beasley told WFAE 90.7,
I think once the people of North Carolina understand that's the system judges operate under, they really are quite offended.
—Cheri Beasley
Although every registered voter has a say in who sits on the state supreme court, it can be difficult to find much information about judicial candidates. 's supreme court races are also nonpartisan, so candidates aren't able to promote their affiliation with a political party. Candidates have a short time to get voters familiar with their name, and they need to reach voters statewide. This is why so many judicial candidates rely on television ads, even though they're expensive. North Carolina is one of 22 states where state supreme court judges must run for election.
March 6, 2014Click for story→See also:
A recent study has concluded that ’s eight-year-old clean elections law had done exactly what it was designed to do: reduce the influence of private money in statewide judicial elections. It did, that is, until the state assembly and governor terminated the program.
The study, released last month by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, found that the North Carolina Public Campaign Fund had reduced the amount of private money in judicial elections from 77% of all campaign contributions to 40%. Further, before the program was implemented, only 25% of statewide judicial elections were monetarily competitive. After the program was established, this number rose to 78%. Additionally, from the time the program was active until its end, political party and candidate committee contributions decreased as an overall percentage from 9% to less than 1%.
The “Voter-Owned Elections” system had been in place since 2004. The program had established a method of publicly funding candidates in statewide judicial elections by assessing an annual $50 fee on attorneys and allowing state residents to voluntarily contribute $3 on their tax returns. Though the system still required candidates to raise a certain amount of money on their own in order to demonstrate “broad support” for their campaign, the Fund was intended to curb the practice of soliciting contributions from attorneys and business interests that were likely to appear before the court.
The program had been popular among candidates in contested elections, 77% of whom had opted into the system. Fourteen of the fifteen members of the
had encouraged lawmakers to maintain the program prior to its elimination. Nonetheless, the
terminated the program as part of a larger voter identification bill in August of 2013.
According to a paper published by the University of North Carolina School of Government, opponents have argued that such public campaign funding:
may upset taxpayers who don't want their money indirectly funding a candid
encourages candidates to file for election who have little chance of winning simply as a platform to es
gives incumbents a greater advantage by leveling the financial playing field and making name recognit
puts too much control in the han
can be compared to welfare for politicians
The study by the National Institute On Money in State Politics concluded that “future campaigns—without public funds—will reveal whether candidates for the Tar Heel State’s highest court will revert to relying heavily on private contributions and/or their own pocketbooks.”
Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
() (Download)
Though North Carolina judicial elections are technically nonpartisan, the political affiliations of the supreme court candidates are widely known. Hudson is also being endorsed by the .}