Senate Retention Election Bill Would Affect Only Supreme Court | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Barry Smith, who is an associate editor for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

House gets second crack at bill altering judicial elections

    RALEIGH     North Carolina could soon see a radically different way of selecting its state Supreme Court justices. Instead of seeing the names of two candidates for every Supreme Court justice seat on the general election ballot, voters would be asked whether they wanted to retain a justice for an additional term on the state's highest court.

    On Monday night, a bill changing the justice selection method cleared the state Senate. It heads back to the House, where members earlier this year passed a retention-election bill including judges on the state Court of Appeals along with Supreme Court justices. If the House agrees to the Senate version, or the two chambers approve a compromise, voters would notice the differences on the general election ballot in November of 2016.

    The bill passed the Senate by a 35-12 vote with little debate.

    Candidates for the Supreme Court run either for the chief justice seat or one of the six associate justice seats. They serve eight-year terms.

    All North Carolina judges are elected with no partisan affiliation stated on the ballot, although the political parties go to great lengths to inform voters of the candidates' political and ideological positions. If more than two candidates file for a seat, a primary is held in May before the general election to whittle down the list to two candidates. The two highest vote-getters then face off in the November general election.

    Under the Senate-passed version of House Bill 222, that selection process would remain the same for a Supreme Court justice's initial election.

    But a justice seeking a second or subsequent term would not face an opponent and instead would have to prevail in a retention election.

    The incumbent justice would file notice seeking an additional term in July of the year before the general election at the end of the justice's eight-year term - about a year and a half before the term expires.

    At the general election near the term's completion, voters would choose to retain the justice or not. If a majority approves retention, then the justice will serve another eight-year term. If it doesn't, that seat would become vacant when the term expires (at the endo of the calendar year). The governor would appoint a replacement to fill the vacant seat, and to win a full term, at the next general election the appointed justice would have to defeat an opponent in a traditional election.

    During committee debate last week, some senators voiced concerns that the measure could preclude some candidates from running for office while limiting voters' choices.

    "It just seems to me that this is kind of taking away our right of the voters to elect someone," said Sen. Jane Smith, D-Robeson. "We're essentially taking away the electoral right for the voters."

    Smith also said that the change would be confusing to voters.

    Sen. Ralph Hise, R-Mitchell, disagreed. "I would not underestimate the voters of the state of North Carolina," he said.