North Carolina judicial elections, 2014

Political party switch by judicial candidates makes headlines in nonpartisan election

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

Willie Fred Gore and Sherry D. Prince both ran for an open seat on the North Carolina 13th Judicial District. Though North Carolina judicial elections are nonpartisan, both candidates chose to publicly change their political affiliations in the middle of the campaign from Democrat to Republican.^[12]

Gore formally switched his party to Republican on August 15. He did so, he said, because he is "a conservative at heart" and his conscience demanded it.^[12] He cited his time in the National Guard and working for Brunswick County District Attorney Jon David, a member of the GOP, as being influential in his decision.^[12]

Willie Fred Gore

His opponent, Prince, was the incumbent and was appointed to the bench by Democratic Governor Bev Perdue. Prince was also a former Columbus County 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."^[13] She went on to state that she had re-examined her personal beliefs and philosophies and found that they were better in line with the Republican platform. Democratic Party chair Leonard Jenkins said that Prince did not discuss her switch with the party before making it.^[13]

Two North Carolina candidates appointed, gaining election advantages

Governor Pat McCrory decided that he didn't have to wait until the November election to, in a way, "cast his vote" in two North Carolina Supreme Court races. He did that by exercising his right to appoint judges to vacancies, quickly making two candidates incumbents. Mark Martin was appointed to serve as chief justice of the supreme court and Bob Hunter was appointed to replace Martin as an associate justice. Both candidates were already running for election to those seats and, after their appointments, gained the advantage of being listed as an incumbent on the November ballots.^[14]

Justice Mark Martin

On August 18, 2014, Governor McCrory appointed Justice Mark Martin, a senior associate justice, to the chief justice position on the state's supreme court. Martin ran for election to that position in November against Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Ola M. Lewis. His appointment was effective September 1, so he had approximately one month of incumbency before the election.

Regarding Martin's appointment, the governor stated:

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."^[17] However, she still showed confidence in her chances, stating:

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.^[18]

Judge Bob Hunter

The race to fill Martin's seat was set to be one between two colleagues from the North Carolina Court of Appeals. That changed once Bob Hunter assumed office as a supreme court justice on September 6, 2014. Hunter was appointed on August 20 by Governor McCrory.^[19]

Hunter faced Judge Sam Ervin in November. Ervin previously ran for election to the supreme court in 2012, but lost to Paul Martin Newby in an expensive race. Though North Carolina's judicial elections are nonpartisan, Ervin was considered to be a Democrat, while Hunter was considered to be a Republican.

Nineteen candidates compete for North Carolina Court of Appeals this November

North Carolina voters determined the fate of nineteen court of appeals candidates in 2014.^[20]

John Martin, former chief judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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.^[20]

Since the law puts no limit on how many candidates may throw their hats in the ring, the fluke of timing had allowed nineteen judicial hopefuls to compete. In a race this crowded, a candidate receiving even 6 percent of the vote may walk away the winner, a situation which an editorial in the Raleigh News & Observer called "laughable."^[20]

Equating the election to "closing our eyes and randomly pulling a name out of a hat," the editorial expressed doubt that voters would (or could, 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 could have discouraged citizens from selecting a new court of appeals judge or even discouraged them from voting in other relevant races on that portion of the ballot.^[20]

Special election for appellate judgeship scheduled

North Carolina voters got an extra election on their November ballots following a recent retirement announcement by one of the state's top judges. John C. Martin, former chief judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, retired from the bench on August 1, 2014. Though Governor Pat McCrory could have appointed a temporary replacement, the official judge for that role had to be chosen by voters in the general election.

In the special election, since there was no primary to narrow down the number of candidates, the person who received the most votes won. Depending on the many candidates who filed to run for the seat, the new judge could have won with a small percentage of the overall vote.

Voter ID law still under fire in North Carolina

New voting laws passed by the legislature and the Governor in 2013 were to go into effect this November unless opponents of the laws managed to successfully have it overturned in federal court. The U.S. Department of Justice, the North Carolina NAACP, and others, 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 Supreme Court ruled on Shelby County v. Holder, striking a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that 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 required a photo ID in order to vote. Though that was the most divisive issue, it would not take effect until 2016. In 2014, the law was set to: reduce the early voting period by seven days, eliminated some same-day voter registration during early voting, caused ballots cast in the right county but wrong precinct to be discarded, and allowed voters to challenge each other's right to vote, among other things.

Reverend William Barber, the president of the state's NAACP, called the act a "monster voter suppression law."^[23] The Obama administration and others who opposed the law said that it disenfranchised minority citizens.^[24]

However, Republicans argued that the new laws provided 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."^[24]

Highlights from North Carolina's primary

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 Robin Hudson's seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court. 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.^[26] Some speculated early on that the two Republican candidates who ran against Hudson, a Democrat, encouraged a large Republican turnout and eliminated the incumbent from the competition. In the state's judicial elections, the two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary would advance to the general election.^[27]

Hudson did make it past the primary and maintained her incumbent advantage against Eric L. Levinson in the general election. She received 42.5 percent of the votes, while Levinson received 36.6 percent and Jeanette Doran was eliminated with 20.9 percent.^[28] After election night, in spite of earlier speculations, it was reported that Democrats accounted for approximately 42 percent of the voters, while Republicans represented about 31 percent.^[29]

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:

• 5th Division, 21A Judicial District: Richard Samuel Gottlieb and Stacey Dawn Rubain competed in the general election.

District courts:

• 12th District: Rita Cox and Stephen C. Stokes advanced to the general election.
• 14th District: Fred Battaglia, Jr. challenged incumbent Nancy E. Gordon for her seat in the general election. Henry Pruette challenged incumbent Doretta Walker for her seat in the general election.
• 19C District: James Randolph and Ted Blanton faced off in the general election.
• 12th District: Valene Franco and Theodore Kazakos advanced to the general election.
• 23rd District: Donna L. Shumate faced Robert Crumpton in the general election.
• 28th District: J. Matthew Martin challenged incumbent Edwin D. Clontz in the general election.
• 3A District: Faris Dixon opposed incumbent Lee F. Teague in the general election.^[28]

Big money, big risk marks North Carolina Supreme Court primary

The race for Justice Robin Hudson's seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court was the only supreme court race in the state that included a primary election.

With two Republican candidates in the primary, voter turnout from that party was 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. It was speculated that if Republican voters turned out in force to support either of their two candidates--superior court judge Eric Lee Levinson or Jeanette Kathleen Doran--it would counteract Hudson's incumbent advantage. Additionally, a slew of Republican candidates ran in the state's U.S. Senate election, hoping for a chance to face Democratic Senator Kay Hagan in the fall. That race was also expected to encourage more Republican participation in the primary and put Hudson at a disadvantage.^[30][31][32]

However, the stakes were high for the Democrats, too, as they had to win three of the four total races in 2014 to maintain their minority on the high court. The party hoped to replace retired Chief Justice Sarah Parker, who was widely known as a Democrat, with another ally on the court.^[33]

The import of this primary was 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 helped fund Hudson's opposition. This was not an unusual phenomenon, as there was no spending or fundraising limits on third-party groups in North Carolina, where candidates were limited to $5,000 in contributions, per donor. Therefore, much of the spending was from outside groups. This was the second North Carolina judicial election in a row that saw increased levels of partisan spending and interest from groups outside North Carolina.^[34][35]

Two groups in particular 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.^[34][36][37] This was partially funded by Koch Industries, which contributed $50,000 to the chamber's PAC this year.^[38]

The group Justice for All North Carolina, which received a $650,000 donation from the Republican State Leadership Committee, aired ads opposing Hudson that accused her of "not being tough on child molesters."^[39] Koch Industries was also a donor to the Republican Committee, giving $359,940 to that organization in 2014.^[38]

The negative ad referred to Hudson's dissenting opinion in State v. Bowditch. Hudson was in the minority on the ruling, which was 4-3.^[40] 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.^[41]

North Carolina judicial candidate rankings released for 2014

The North Carolina Bar Association ranks candidates in the state's judicial races, and the group released its report for the May 6 primary in April 2014. 2014 was the second year the association had done such a survey, the first one was conducted in 2012.^[43]

The association ranked judges in all nine trial court races that had primaries. Eight of the primaries in 2014 were district court races, and the last race was for the Forsyth County Superior Court. There were 32 candidates running in all, four of them incumbents.^[43][44]

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.^[43]

In the superior court race, three lawyers ran to replace William Z. Wood, Jr., who vacated his seat. The candidates were: Richard Gottlieb, Stacey Rubain and Donna Taylor. 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.^[43][45] View the full survey here.

Judges speak out against new campaign funding rules

Recent changes to judicial campaign finance rules allowed private donors and big-money interests to unduly influence the makeup of the North Carolina judiciary, according to a group of current North Carolina judges.

North Carolina Supreme Court Associate Justice Cheri Beasley, along with judges Sam Ervin and Mark A. Davis of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, spoke at a Carteret County Democratic Party fundraising event in Morehead City. The trio warned that voters would have to be especially careful to conduct thorough research prior to heading to the polls to cast their ballots for judicial candidates in 2014. This was because a Republican supermajority in the General Assembly of North Carolina 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 feared the changes open up the possibility that moneyed interests, including out-of-state groups, can outspend opponents to achieve partisan outcomes.^[46]

At the Democratic Party event, the judges voiced concerns that the changes would 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.^[46]

Running for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court no easy task

Four seats were up for election on the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2014. In the 2012 election, only one seat was on the ballot. Incumbent Paul Newby faced off against challenger Sam Ervin, 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 were 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 was no limit to the amount a candidate could raise or spend. The catch was, each candidate had to raise all their own funds.

Experts estimated a supreme court candidate would need to raise at least a million dollars to mount a competitive campaign. John Hood, president of the John Locke Foundation, believed making candidates raise the money they need for their campaigns was a good thing. He argued that since candidates for the North Carolina Supreme Court were running for a statewide seat, it would take more than $350,000 to mount an effective campaign.^[47]

While certain opinion argued that it was a good thing for candidates to raise their own money, the task can prove to be time-consuming and can have judges asking for money from lawyers and businesses who might later appear before them in court. Because independent groups were able to pump money into the supreme court races, the campaign process caused 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 Cheri Beasley's campaign consultants advised her she needed to raise as much as 2 million dollars to keep her seat on the court. Her days had to be lengthened to allow her to fit in time for her work on the court and to put in time making calls to raise money for her campaign.^[48] In an interview, Beasley told WFAE 90.7,

Axed clean elections law actually worked, study says

A recent study concluded that North Carolina’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.^[49]

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 percent of all campaign contributions to 40 percent. Further, before the program was implemented, only 25 percent of statewide judicial elections were monetarily competitive. After the program was established, this number rose to 78 percent. Additionally, from the time the program was active until its end, political party and candidate committee contributions decreased as an overall percentage from 9 percent to less than 1 percent.^[49]

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.^[49] 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.^[50]

The program had been popular among candidates in contested elections, 77 percent of whom had opted into the system. Fourteen of the fifteen members of the North Carolina Court of Appeals had encouraged lawmakers to maintain the program prior to its elimination.^[51] Nonetheless, the General Assembly of North Carolina terminated the program as part of a larger voter identification bill in August 2013.^[52]

According to a paper published by the University of North Carolina School of Government, opponents argued that such public campaign funding:

• may upset taxpayers who don't want their money indirectly funding a candidate whom they oppose;
• encourages candidates to file for election who have little chance of winning simply as a platform to espouse their opinions;
• gives incumbents a greater advantage by leveling the financial playing field and making name recognition a greater factor;
• puts too much control in the hands of the government;
• can be compared to welfare for politicians^[53]