Public Funding Helps North Carolina Court Candidates Avoid "New Politics" of Judicial Elections
JAS via BBSNews 2006-11-01 -- WASHINGTON, DC – As judicial elections across the country descend into costly chaos, North Carolina’s innovative system of full public financing of judicial elections has become a national model and has helped safeguard the state’s judicial politics from many of the trends that have swept across the country over the last two election cycles, two national watchdog groups said today.
"As Supreme Court candidates around the country scramble for last-minute dollars, many of the candidates for North Carolina’s highest courts are spending their time talking to voters face-to-face and explaining their qualifications and experience," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake. "In North Carolina, it’s a winning situation for both the candidates and the voters, who also benefit from the most complete judicial voter guide in the country."
With a final week of intense campaigning remaining, judicial candidate fundraising in four states – Georgia, Kentucky, Oregon and Washington – has already smashed state records. Candidates for the Alabama Supreme Court have already raised in excess of $7 million, with nearly half of that amount being raised by candidates for the Chief Justice’s office. A recent New York Times investigation examined a potential link between campaign contributions and rulings from the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court. In North Carolina, however, recently filed campaign disclosure reports show no Supreme Court candidate spending more than $400,000, even those that declined public financing and are not limited in their campaign spending.
Third party efforts by interest groups in Alabama, Georgia, Nevada and Washington have also financed major television advertising campaigns, in some cases designed to skirt disclosure requirements in state campaign finance laws. Data compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake shows that interest group spending on TV ads in state high court races is up by nearly 70 percent over 2004. Research by the groups has shown that when national interest groups pour money into a state, court campaigns tend to become more polarizing and negative.
Not surprisingly, some critics of public financing continue to insist that the system is flawed. Some political consultants have complained that the public financing system does not provide enough money to run a statewide campaign, despite evidence that most judicial candidates ran on considerably less money prior to the system’s establishment. Other critics have argued that the system limits free speech, though the constitutional challenges brought against the Judicial Campaign Reform Act were dealt an initial defeat last week when a federal judge denied a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded: "In sum, plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of any of their claims challenging [particular provisions] and North Carolina’s public financing scheme as a whole."
"We remain confident that North Carolina has developed a system that serves both the voters and the candidates, and even protects the rights of those who opt not to take public financing," said Suzanne Novak, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Across America, 22 states use contested elections to choose their high court justice. North Carolina is the only state with a system of full public financing. Montana, New Mexico and Washington are all expected to give the idea serious examination in their upcoming 2007 legislative sessions.
Comments (0)