A new report from the American Bar Association should give more motivation to state legislators considering whether to test the waters of publicly funded elections.
An ABA commission studying the effect of costly campaigns on state court races concludes that the “escalating arms race” of aggressive campaigns is eroding public confidence in the fairness of the court system and the electoral process.
Although we like to think of judges as being above the down-and-dirty world of high-finance politics, that’s not the reality any more. In the past round of elections, the commission found that spending on some judicial races exceeded $1 million, including the North Carolina Supreme Court contest in which Associate Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr. successfully challenged Chief Justice Henry Frye.
What’s particularly troublesome is that some of the largest campaign donors in judicial races are lawyers who may one day argue a case before a judge whose campaign they helped bankroll. Or maybe they contributed to the judge’s opponent. Either way, it raises potential conflicts of interest and increases public suspicion that politics exerts too strong an influence in the judicial arena.
Currently, the N.C. General Assembly is considering a bill that would directly address the problem. While it would authorize a trial run of publicly funded races, it’s a limited foray in that direction, and it doesn’t involve general tax revenues. Moreover, it closely parallels one of the suggestions from the ABA commission. It would finance appellate court races by doubling the attorney licensing fee. The $50 hike would raise roughly $750,000 annually. Attorneys may not like that extra out-of-pocket expense, but it would seem a reasonable price to pay if it boosts confidence in the legal system as a whole and helps insulate them, as well as judges, from the appearance of impropriety.
Because of the focus on budget problems, other important issues have faded from the public’s radar screen late in the session, campaign finance reform among them. That’s unfortunate, because it’s an issue that directly affects public faith in our public institutions, as well in the electoral process.
The ABA study doesn’t address the underlying issue of whether judges — as impartial arbiters of justice — should be chosen by popular election in the first place. But, as long as we fill the bench through ballots, it does offer sound reasons for changing the current system.
Even those who aren’t sold on the idea of public funding for all elections should agree that society is better served when judges spend their time dispensing justice, not soliciting campaign donations.
Today's News
