Print |
E-mail to a friend
NEWS
Non-partisan election of judges helps, speaker says
HUNTINGTON -- A North Carolina appellate judge spoke Friday about the increased voter confidence that followed that state's judicial campaign reform at a hearing Friday in Huntington.
Lawyers, judges and reform advocates gathered for the hearing of the Independent Commission of Judicial Reform to discuss possible changes in West Virginia's judicial elections. Public financing, full disclosure of fundraising dollars and shutting down questionable campaign expenditures were among the topics discussed at the session held at Marshall University.
Concerns about the influence of politics and big money on the West Virginia court system have been voiced for years, but the millions spent in the 2004 and 2008 Supreme Court elections brought new calls for reform. Gov. Joe Manchin established the commission to study the matter.
Judge Wanda Bryant with the North Carolina Court of Appeals spoke about her state's judicial election system that was reformed in 2002 -- a system West Virginia legislators tried to replicate with legislation that failed earlier this year. The reformed system, Bryant said, restored the public's confidence in judicial elections.
"Most of us judges tried not to be politicians, but that was necessary to be elected (under the old system)," Bryant said. "The new way really helps dispel big money influences in judicial elections."
North Carolina's Supreme Court and court of appeals elections were overhauled in 2002 following unprecedented special interest involvement, according to Damon Circosta with the North Carolina Center for Voter Education. The southern state switched to nonpartisan elections, provided all voters with a voter guide and offered public financing during the 2004 judicial elections.
Bryant, who ran for office under both systems, said much of the politics was taken out of the judicial races when they were changed to nonpartisan. The voter guide, which garnered much attention from the heads of West Virginia's House and Senate Judiciary Committees on Friday, gives candidates an opportunity to give a statement that is sent out to every voter.
Each judicial candidate has 300 words to make a statement. That statement could include their law background, where they graduated from law school, their stances on important rulings or anything else the candidates felt was important for voters to know.
The most controversial part of North Carolina's reformed judicial election system is the public financing option. Public financing is a system of funding in which qualified candidates receive government funds to pay for the expenses of their political campaigns for elections.
North Carolina's public financing is funded from a $3 fee to taxpayers, a $50 mandatory fee to lawyers and some donations. Candidates have to raise $10,000 to qualify before the primary but then the campaigns are financed by the state.
West Virginia Sen. Jeff Kessler, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke about the state's own efforts to install a public financing option. Senate Bill 311, introduced in February 2009, aimed to create a pilot system for public funding of 2012 election campaigns for candidates for the State Supreme Court. The bill never made it out of committee.
Kessler said the bill would have "taken the money out of the equation and instilled confidence in judicial elections." Citizens, Kessler said, want to know that they are going to be treated fairly when they step into a courtroom. Public financing ensures that everyone, and not just campaign contributors, is treated equally, Kessler said.
Circosta said public financing has been embraced by appellate and Supreme Court candidates in North Carolina and he hopes it will be expanded to all judicial candidates.
While North Carolina expands its judicial elections, West Virginia is looking for ways to straighten out its current system by closing loopholes and holding people accountable.
Speakers at the open hearing identified "independent expenditures" as a major issue that needs to be addressed. An independent expenditure occurs when a person chooses to buy advertisements, signs or print information to affect the outcome of the election as an individual.
The person must use his or her own personal funds and must not consult with the candidate, the candidate's campaign or any political action committee active in the election. Delegate Carrie Webster, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the Legislature has focused mainly on making sure independent expenditures are disclosed.
"The Legislature became increasingly concerned about the large amount of money spent, not just in judicial races, but all races," Webster said.
Since 2005, Webster said the Legislature has focused on independent expenditures and identifying the people and organizations responsible for funding the materials. Webster said the Legislature will continue to work to make the process open for the public.
Friday's open hearing was the first of three the commission is sponsoring all over the state. Reforms being discussed include adopting a merit-based system of judicial selection, enacting judicial campaign finance reforms or reporting requirements and creating an intermediate court of appeals.
The commission's findings are to be presented to the governor by Nov. 15.
The commission's next meeting is from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Sept. 21 at the West Virginia University College of Law in Morgantown.
