Archives

News

vote2According to the Winston-Salem Journal, Mike Robinson will ask the state Board of Elections for a recount in his Supreme Court race against Justice Cheri Beasley.

“Robinson told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he intends to request a recount after the State Board of Elections certifies the election results,”  the Journal reported.

(The Robinson campaign has not yet returned a call to confirm the candidate’s intentions.)

The latest posted results from the SBOE show Beasley with 1,228,439 votes and Robinson with 1,225,298.

State law allows a candidate in a statewide race to request a recount when the difference between the votes cast is one-half of one percent (0.5%) or 10,000, whichever is less.

Robinson can submit his request at any time up until noon November 18, which is the second business day after the county canvass — when the counties approve their results as “official,” according to SBOE Public Information Officer Josh Lawson.

Any recount would occur after the county canvass, with a decision possible before Thanksgiving.

Commentary

In case you missed them, two commentaries on the main Policy Watch website from earlier today are worth a look this afternoon.

In today’s “Monday numbers,” Chris Fitzsimon lists some of the latest sobering numbers surrounding the unrepentant efforts of Senator Phil Berger, Rep. Paul Stam and some other troubled souls to block enforcement of the law in North Carolina when it comes to marriage equality. Example:

4—number of says since Fayetteville minister Johnny Hunter said at Rep. Stam’s news that John Arrowood, a candidate for the N.C. Court of Appeals who is gay, is a “flaming homosexual” who should drop out of the race (“Fayetteville minister says openly gay judicial candidate is ‘biased’,) WNCN-TV, October 23, 2014)

0—number of times that Rep. Stam has publicly condemned the comments or openly expressed his disagreement with them

Meanwhile in “Judgeships crowd ballot with bubbles,” commentator Steve Ford of the North Carolina Council of Churches explores the wackiness of the ballot that North Carolina voters are now tackling across the state (which includes a Court of Appeals race with 19 candidates for one office). As Ford notes:

Read More

News

Supreme courtThe Supreme Court issued its first order list of the term this morning, with no decision yet on the seven pending same-sex marriage petitions.

The Court did take 11 new cases though, including a housing discrimination case out of Texas, a redistricting case out of Arizona and a campaign finance case out of Florida.

The housing case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., raises the question of whether disparate impact claims can be asserted under the Fair Housing Act.  It is the third such case the Court has taken in the past three years. The two previous cases settled before the justices could rule on the “disparate impact” question — Mt. Holly in 2013 and  Magner v. Gallagher in 2012.

The redistricting case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, involves that state’s use of a commission (as opposed to its legislature) to adopt congressional districts.

And the campaign finance case, Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, asks whether a state judicial conduct rule prohibiting judges from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment.

As  Adam Liptak noted in Sunday’s New York Times, writing about judges on the campaign trail:

Thirty of the states that elect judges ban such personal requests. Every state supreme court to address the bans has said they are justified by the need to protect the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial system.

But federal appeals courts are split on the issue. Four of them, collectively covering 23 states, have struck down solicitation bans. In May, for instance, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco,struck down Arizona’s ban, at least as applied to candidates for judicial office who are not yet judges.

This is not a concern in North Carolina, however, because the code of judicial conduct here expressly allows judges to personally solicit campaign funds.

Uncategorized

(Credit: WRAL)

To kick off your Monday, here’s a cautionary tale from Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick about what’s happening in Tennessee judicial elections — a tale that’s unfortunately all too familiar here in North Carolina.

In a reprise of what happened in that state back in 2009, three Democratically-appointed Supreme Court  justices who are up for a retention election (essentially a vote of confidence) are under attack from well-heeled Republicans who, having gained control of the legislature and the governor’s seat there, want to complete their trifecta by ruling the high court as well.

Sound familiar?  (See Robin Hudson).

In an interesting twist, though, the state bar association has launched a counterattack, raising nearly $600,000 in bipartisan support of the justices.

While admirable, that effort plays right into the quandary of lawyers giving money to judges before whom they appear and feeds an unfortunate spending spiral.

Says Lithwick:

And that’s the real problem. When judicial races turn into spending races, what suffers most is not Democrats or Republicans, but judicial independence and integrity. As has been exhaustively chronicled by one nonpartisan study after another, judges don’t want to be dialing for dollars from the attorneys who litigate before them, and litigants don’t want to appear before judges who dial for dollars. All of the data shows that the effect is a decline in confidence in the independence of the judiciary and a spending arms race that spirals ever more out of control. That’s the paradox of course: Cynically preying on an unspecified public fear of out-of control judges will ultimate result in actual jurists who are actually compromised, either by taking money they shouldn’t be taking, or making promises and pledges they are in no position to make. In either case, imaginary judicial shadiness  becomes a lot more real.

 

Uncategorized

As we sift through the aftermath of this week’s primary elections, folks should check out two new “must reads” from the state’s editorial pages about the bottom-of-the-barrel, big-money attack ads that infected the race for a state Supreme Court seat.

In this essay published in this morning’s edition of Raleigh’s News & Observer, Melissa Price Kromm of North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections and Bert Brandenburg of the group Justice at Stake in Washington, D.C had this to say:

“After years of avoiding the explosion in judicial election spending nationwide, North Carolina is quickly earning an unwelcome reputation. In the 2011-2012 judicial election cycle, more than $3.5 million was spent for just one state Supreme Court seat; more than $2.8 million of that came from outside groups.

The soaring independent spending in North Carolina is in keeping with national trends since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that unleashed unlimited independent spending on elections

These trends pose a disturbing threat to our courts – that justice might be for sale. Read More