NC Law Prof Demolishes “Merit” Selection
February 2, 2012
Strong oped by Elon University law professor Scott Gaylord on the subversive campaign afoot in North Carolina to take the power to pick judges away from the people. In a recent post, I pointed out that North Carolina Beverly Perdue’s new judicial advisory panel is stacked with trial bar poo-bahs. Gaylord lifts the rock even higher by digging into their political fundraising:
“Last month, Gov. Beverly Perdue appointed 18 individuals to her judicial nominating commission, which will advise her on judicial appointments. The committee is anything but nonpartisan, being dominated by prominent Democrats from across the state. A quick review of federal campaign donations of the newly appointed commission members shows that they donated almost exclusively to Democratic candidates.”
Gaylord demolishes the fantasy that “merit” selection takes “politics” out of the judicial selection process. Instead, “merit” selection merely “removes the citizens from the judicial selection process in favor of an unelected and unaccountable committee” – and a sharply partisan one at that. “Judicial elections provide North Carolinians with a proven way to hold the judiciary accountable,” Gaylord writes. Let’s hope the North Carolina legislature see through the ruse and preserves the system that has served the state well for over 140 years.
If It Looks Like “Merit” Selection and Smells Like “Merit” Selection…
January 23, 2012
Has “merit” selection become so discredited that its supporters won’t even utter the name? That seems to be the case in North Carolina, if Paul D. Carrington of the North Carolina Bar Association Committee for Judicial Independence is any guide.
In a Charlotte News and Observer oped last week, Carrington bemoans the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate “matching fund” rules that shoveled taxpayer dollars to candidates in danger of “being outspent by rival candidates” who chose not to participate in public financing. Since, “alas, our good system is now dead,” Carrington and the North Carolina Bar Association are pushing a new plan that “assigns an important role to voters to approve or disapprove appointments of judges nominated by our governor on the advice of a diverse and disinterested panel.” Carrington applauds Governor Beverly Perdue for having “taken the first step in creating a sensible system” by establishing “a diverse committee to advise her on prospective appointments.”
Sure smells like “merit” selection to me, although Carrington doesn’t dare mention it. But just to be sure, I Googled “North Carolina judicial nominating commission” … and whaddya know! In addition to the usual assortment of Bar Association luminaries, it turns out this shiny new commission, which Carrington wants “firmly established to play an important role” in picking judges is chaired by Perdue’s “former general counsel” who just happens to be a “fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.” Another commission member is a Raleigh attorney who served as the “founding Chair” of the successor group to the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers. Nope, nobody here but us “diverse and disinterested” committee members.
As an old political hand, the language of Carrington’s piece fascinated me. In place of a “merit” commission, we have a “diverse and disinterested panel;” instead of acknowledging that the committee would actually have the power to make nominations, we hear it would merely “play an important role” in the process; instead of dictating to Governor Perdue or a future governor, the commission merely “advise[s]” on “prospective appointments.” Of course, the whole proposal leads off with the assurance that it “assigns an important role to voters” – which is the first sign they’re about to get shafted.
Maybe I’m getting cynical, but I’ve been on the used car lot before and I know when a lemon is being gussied up so it can be pawned off on some unsuspecting customer, which in this case is North Carolina’s voters.
Can the Tarheels Keep Pace with the Volunteers?
May 17, 2011
Last week, Tennessee decided to boost its economy the right way. Rather than spending billions of dollars that it doesn’t have, the state opted for a simpler, more sustainable approach: it put caps on liabilities and punitive damages.
Tennessee was one of the few remaining states in the Southeast that had not yet amended its laws to prevent excessive lawsuits. Now, according to State Senator Mark Norris (R), the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act” has “leveled the playing field” for Tennessee both regionally and beyond. “It’s much more than tort reform” Norris said. “We must be competitive with other states.” With sensible and fair liability limits, Tennessee will be a more attractive option for prospective businesses – like Volkswagen. Just last month the German auto manufacturer built its first car in its new Chattanooga plant, a plant that has already spent over $686 million dollars in local and state contracts.
Now, it’s North Carolina’s turn. Tomorrow, “Tort Reform for Citizens and Businesses” hits the House floor. The bill proposes a number of standard reforms, including limits on medical liability litigation, limits on attorney fees in personal and property damage, and limits on landowner liability for trespassers. The bill also has a powerful component: liability protection for pharmaceuticals approved by the FDA . Though there’s a lot at stake for the Tarheel State, so far the local media outlets aren’t paying much attention.
Last December, the University of North Carolina beat the Tennessee Volunteers in the Music City Bowl. Now, it’s time to match Tennessee’s score on tort reform.
Legal Elites Look to Push Aside Voters in North Carolina
May 11, 2011
Three high-powered North Carolina lawyers representing the North Carolina Bar Association apparently don’t like the kind of judges ordinary citizens are electing to the bench. Who do they think would do a better job? Well … actually … people like themselves! Under a plan the Bar is pushing in the state legislature, a 16-member commission, including 8 lawyers chosen by various legal special interest groups such as the state trial lawyer lobby, would replace the collective wisdom of North Carolina’s 6.1 million registered voters.
One favorable editorial suggests the new system will ensure that “people who understand what makes a good judge” get to decide who makes it to the bench. If you live in North Carolina and you’re not a powerful lawyer, chances are you don’t qualify.
In support of this voter disenfranchisement scheme, one lawyer related how a sitting Chief Justice actually had to run against … get this … a “fire extinguisher salesman!” Back in 1974! Oh, the horror! Wonder what these leagle eagles would think of the occupations of our nation’s founders - many of whom were not lawyers. They included farmers, doctors, scientists and shopkeepers.
Now that I think about it, a fire extinguisher salesman would probably be more likely to crack down on the trial bar’s jackpot justice than most Harvard-educated judges. And what businessman or woman wouldn’t trust a fire extinguisher salesman to pick judges over a trial lawyer?
Fortunately, North Carolina’s elected officials weren’t frightened by 37-year-old anecdotes. Senator Dan Soucek of Boone cut to the chase: Allowing lawyer-dominated commissions to choose judges has “the potential to reduce freedom and liberty.” Well said.
The Arrogance of Power
October 21, 2009
A Washington Times article chronicles a decision by the Obama Justice Department to forbid Kinston, NC (population 23,000) from doing away with party affiliations in local elections. The Justice Department concluded that having city council and mayoral candidates run on a nonpartisan slate “would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.” (The population of Kinston, NC is two-thirds black.)
“Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office,” explained the former acting head of the Obama Justice Department’s civil rights division. So in other words, the Obama Administration believes the only way an African American can be elected to office is by riding the coattails of the Democratic Party. What a disturbingly condescending view!
The president of the local NAACP found the contention laughable. Said William Cooke, head of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the NAACP:
“… even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart.”
Removing the “non” from nonpartisan elections is going to keep the Justice Department pretty busy over the next few years. As the Washington Times article notes, only nine of North Carolina’s 551 cities and towns hold partisan local elections.