North Carolina judicial elections, 2014

North Carolina judicial elections, 2014
Overview
Total candidates:	233
Primary candidates:	35
General election candidates:	218
Incumbency
Incumbents:	126
Incumbent success rate:	93%
Competition - general election
Percent of candidates in contested races:	114
Percent uncontested:	104

2015 → ← 2013
Judicial Elections
Judicial elections, 2014
Judicial election dates
Candidates by state
Supreme court elections

The North Carolina judicial elections occur every even-numbered year and, though they are nonpartisan, the higher-level, appellate court races are often competitive with clearly drawn partisan lines. Among the many seats up for election in 2014, voters chose candidates to fill four seats on the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Democrats gained one seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, with Sam Ervin's victory over the recently appointed Justice Robert N. Hunter, Jr. Still, as the Republican-to-Democratic justice ratio changed from 5-2 to 4-3, there remained a majority of Republicans on the court.

A recount was requested in the race between Justice Cheri Beasley (D) and Mike Robinson (R). Beasley maintained a 3,991-vote lead once all precincts had reported on election night. Recount results placed Beasley 5,410 votes ahead of Robinson, confirming her victory.

In total, 233 judicial candidates ran for election in North Carolina in 2014. 126 were incumbents and 104 were unopposed.

See also: North Carolina elections summary, 2014

Election dates

• February 28: Filing deadline
• May 6: Primary
• November 4: General election

In addition to candidate lists, this page includes information about how the state's judicial elections work, as well as articles about noteworthy news in races across the state.

Want to learn more about the biggest judicial elections in North Carolina in 2014? Check out the North Carolina Supreme Court elections, 2014 page for an in-depth exploration of the candidates, issues, politics and news surrounding the state's high court races.

General election: Contested races

(I) denotes incumbent

Supreme Court, Chief Justice

• Mark Martin (I), 72.2%A
• Ola M. Lewis, 27.8%A

Supreme Court, Beasley Seat

• Cheri Beasley (I), 50.1%A
• Michael L. Robinson, 49.9%A

Supreme Court, Hudson Seat

• Eric L. Levinson, 47.5%A
• Robin Hudson (I), 52.5%A

Supreme Court, Martin Seat

• Robert N. Hunter, Jr. (I), 47.4%A
• Sam Ervin, 52.6%A

Court of Appeals, Davis Seat

• Mark A. Davis (I), 58.8%A
• Paul A. Holcombe, 41.2%A

Court of Appeals, Hunter Seat

• Lucy N. Inman, 51.9%A
• William F. Southern, III, 48.1%A

Court of Appeals, Martin seat, special election

• John Marsh Tyson, 23.8%A
• Abraham P. Jones, 2.6%A
• Ann Kirby, 4.1%A
• Betsy Bunting, 1.6%A
• Chuck Winfree, 2.3%A
• Daniel Patrick Donahue, 2.8%A
• Elizabeth Davenport Scott, 5.6%A
• Hunter Murphy, 4.4%A
• J. Brad Donovan, 1.3%A
• Jeffrey M. Cook, 2.1%A
• Jody Newsome, 1.7%A
• John S. Arrowood, 14.4%A
• Keischa Lovelace, 9.7%A
• Lori G. Christian, 3.8%A
• Marion R. Warren, 6.1%A
• Marty Martin, 5.1%A
• Sabra Jean Faires, 1.4%A
• Tricia Shields, 3.4%A
• Valerie Johnson Zachary, 4.0%A

Third Division of the Superior Court, 15A Judicial District, Johnson seat

• Alex Dawson, III, 20.2%A
• James K. Roberson, 30.8%A
• Keith Whited, 27.4%A
• Mike Rodgers (North Carolina), 5.9%A
• Rick Champion, 15.7%A

Fifth Division Superior Court, 21A Judicial District

• Richard Samuel Gottlieb, 68.5%A
• Stacey Dawn Rubain, 31.5%A

Sixth Division of the Superior Court, 19A Judicial District

• Martin B. McGee, 65.8%A
• William F. Rogers, Jr., 34.2%A

Seventh Division of the Superior Court, 25A Judicial District

• C. Thomas Edwards (I), 45.7%A
• Daniel A. Kuehnert, 54.4%A

Seventh Division of the Superior Court, 25B Judicial District

• Gregory R. Hayes, 56.7%A
• Jason R. White, 43.3%A

Seventh Division of the Superior Court, 26B Judicial District, Seat 2

• Carla Archie, 36.4%A
• David Kelly, 16.4%A
• Eric A. Montgomery, 19.7%A
• John W. Bowers, 27.4%A

Seventh Division of the Superior Court, 26C Judicial District

• Justin W. Moore, 42.9%A
• W. Robert Bell (I), 57.1%A

3A Judicial District, Hilburn Seat

• David C. Sutton, 32.0%A
• P. Gwynett Hilburn (I), 68.0%A

3A Judicial District, Teague Seat

• Faris Dixon, 47.8%A
• Lee F. Teague (I), 52.2%A

5th Judicial District, Blackmore Seat

• Kent Harrell, 49.996%A
• Lindsey McKee, 50.004%A

5th Judicial District, Crouch Seat

• Charles Lineberry, 46.9%A
• Melinda H. Crouch (I), 53.1%A

7A and 7BC Judicial Districts, Harper Seat

• Lamont Wiggins, 46.7%A
• Wayne Shelton Boyette, 53.3%A

10th Judicial District, Fullwood Seat

• Charles P. Gilliam, 48.5%A
• Craig Croom, 51.6%A

10th Judicial District, Meyer Seat

• Louis B. Meyer, III (I), 51.8%A
• James Ansley, 48.2%A

11th Judicial District, Corbett Seat

• Joy A. Jones, 52.8%A
• LeVonda G. Wood, 47.2%A

11th Judicial District, Stewart Seat

• Caron H. Stewart (I), 58.5%A
• Kenneth R. Jones, 41.6%A

12th Judicial District, Franks Seat

• Rita Cox, 45.5%A
• Stephen C. Stokes, 54.5%A

12th Judicial District, Keever Seat

• Cheri Siler-Mack, 59%A
• J. Duane Gilliam, Jr., 41%A

12th Judicial District, Reaves Seat

• April M. Smith, 61.5%A
• John Clark Reaves (I), 38.5%A

13th Judicial District, Prince Seat

• Sherry D. Prince (I), 43.5%A
• Willie Fred Gore, 56.5%A

14th Judicial District, Evans Seat

• Pat Evans (I), 75%A
• Steven Storch, 25%A

14th Judicial District, Gordon Seat

• Fred Battaglia, Jr., 53.1%A
• Nancy E. Gordon (I), 46.9%A

14th Judicial District, Walker Seat

• Doretta Walker (I), 61.4%A
• Henry Pruette, 38.6%A

15A Judicial District, Allen Seat

• Brad Allen (I), 63%A
• John W. Cox, 37%A

17A Judicial District, Allen Seat

• Christine Fields Strader, 50.7%A
• Wayne A. Hollowell, 49.3%A

17A Judicial District, Wilkins Seat

• Christopher A. Freeman, 50.2%A
• Frederick B. Wilkins, Jr. (I), 49.9%A

19A Judicial District, Cloninger Seat

• Brent Cloninger (I), 63.2%A
• Juanita Boger-Allen, 36.8%A

19A Judicial District, Johnson Seat

• Benjamin Franklin Jr., 47%A
• Donna H. Johnson (I), 53%A

19A Judicial District, McGee Seat

• Christy E. Wilhelm (I), 55.8%A
• Steven A. Grossman, 44.2%A

19B Judicial District, Heafner Seat

• Steve A. Bibey, 57.7%A
• William H. Heafner (I), 42.3%A

19C Judicial District, Kluttz Seat

• James Randolph, 52.4%A
• Ted Blanton, 47.6%A

20A Judicial District, New Seat

• John R. Nance, 51.3%A
• John W. Webster, 48.7%A

21st Judicial District, New Seat

• Theodore Kazakos, 57.3%A
• Valene Franco, 42.7%A

22A Judicial District, Church Seat

• Carole A. Hicks, 46.4%A
• H. Thomas Church (I), 53.6%A

23rd Judicial District, Duncan Seat

• Donna L. Shumate, 48.8%A
• Robert Crumpton, 51.2%A

25th Judicial District, Hayes Seat

• David W. Aycock, 53.1%A
• F. Wesley Sigmon, 46.9%A

26th Judicial District, Nixon Seat

• Theo X. Nixon (I), 43.5%A
• Yolanda M. Trotman, 56.5%A

26th Judicial District, Viser Seat

• Alicia D. Brooks, 58.1%A
• Casey Viser (I), 41.9%A

28th Judicial District, Clontz Seat

• Edwin D. Clontz (I), 52.9%A
• J. Matthew Martin, 47.1%A

General election: Uncontested

The following candidates ran unopposed in the general election.

Appellate courts

Court	Candidate
Click the arrows in the column headings to sort columns alphabetically.
North Carolina Court of Appeals	Donna Stroud

Trial courts

Court	Candidate
Click the arrows in the column headings to sort columns alphabetically.
11th Judicial District	Addie H. Rawls
27B Judicial District	Ali Paksoy
15B Judicial District of the Third Division of the Superior Court	Allen Baddour
25th Judicial District	Amy Sigmon Walker
17B Judicial District	Angela B. Puckett
22B Judicial District	April C. Wood
22B Judicial District	B. Carlton Terry, Jr.
19C Judicial District	Beth S. Dixon
14th Judicial District	Brian C. Wilks
29A Judicial District	C. Randy Pool
15B Judicial District of the Third Division of the Superior Court	Carl R. Fox
5th Judicial District	Chad Hogston
Second Division of the Superior Court, 4B Judicial District	Charles H. Henry
17B Judicial District	Charles M. Neaves
19C Judicial District	Charlie Brown (North Carolina)
16A Judicial District	Christopher Rhue
25th Judicial District	Clifton H. Smith
2nd Judicial District Court	Darrell B. Cayton, Jr.
23rd Judicial District	David Byrd (North Carolina)
12th Judicial District	David Hasty
21st Judicial District	Denise S. Hartsfield
26th Judicial District	Donald Cureton, Jr.
30th Judicial District	Donna Forga
17A Judicial District of the Fifth Division of the Superior Court	Edwin Wilson
8A and the 8B Judicial Districts	Elizabeth A. Heath
1st Judicial District Court	Eula E. Reid
24th Judicial District	F. Warren Hughes
21st Judicial District	George A. Bedsworth
18th Judicial District	Harold T. Jarrell, Jr.
16B Judicial District	Herbert L. Richardson
9th Judicial District	J. Henry Banks
16B Judicial District	J. Stanley Carmical
5th Judicial District	James H. Faison
14th Judicial District	James T. Hill
19B Judicial District	Jayrene R. Maness
27A Judicial District, Seventh Division of the Superior Court	Jesse B. Caldwell, III
22B Judicial District	Jimmy L. Myers
16B Judicial District	John B. Carter, Jr.
22B Judicial District	John R. Penry, Jr.
15B Judicial District	Joseph M. Buckner
28th Judicial District	Julie M. Kepple
10th Judicial District	Keith O. Gregory
19C Judicial District	Kevin G. Eddinger
10th Judicial District Court	Kris D. Bailey
30th Judicial District	Kristina L. Earwood
29A Judicial District	Laura A. Powell
19B Judicial District	Lee W. Gavin
26B Judicial District of the Seventh Division of the Superior Court	Lisa C. Bell
21st Judicial District	Lisa V. Menefee
14th Judicial District	Marcia H. Morey
10th Judicial District Court	Margaret P. Eagles
9A Judicial District	Mark E. Galloway
22B Judicial District of the Sixth Division of the Superior Court	Mark E. Klass
29B Judicial District of the Eighth Division of the Superior Court	Mark E. Powell
25th Judicial District	Mark L. Killian
3A Judicial District, First Division of the Superior Court	Marvin K. Blount
22B Judicial District	Mary F. Covington
26th Judicial District	Matt Osman
1st Judicial District	Meader W. Harriss, III
23rd Judicial District of the Fifth Division of the Superior Court	Michael D. Duncan
10th Judicial District Court	Michael J. Denning
27A Judicial District	Michael K. Lands
10th Judicial District	Ned W. Mangum
26th Judicial District	Paige B. McThenia
28th Judicial District	Patricia Kaufmann Young
4A and 4B Judicial Districts	Paul A. Hardison
10A Judicial District of the Third Division of the Superior Court	Paul C. Ridgeway
10C Judicial District of the Third Division of the Superior Court	Paul G. Gessner
7A and the 7BC Judicial Districts	Pell Cooper
27A Judicial District	Ralph C. Gingles, Jr.
26th Judicial District	Rebecca Thorne Tin
26th Judicial District	Regan A. Miller
16A Judicial District	Regina M. Joe
2nd Judicial District Court	Regina Parker
26th Judicial District	Rickye McKoy-Mitchell
25th Judicial District	Robert A. Mullinax, Jr.
12th Judicial District	Robert J. Stiehl
29A Judicial District	Robert K. Martelle
1st Judicial District Court	Robert P. Trivette
18th Judicial District, Fifth Division of the Superior Court	Robert S. Albright
30th Judicial District	Roy Wijewickrama
4A and 4B Judicial Districts	Sarah C. Seaton
19B Judicial District	Scott C. Etheridge
20A Judicial District	Scott T. Brewer
26th Judicial District	Sean Smith
25th Judicial District	Sherri W. Elliott
17B Judicial District	Spencer G. Key, Jr.
17A Judicial District of the Fifth Division of the Superior Court	Stanley L. Allen
28th Judicial District	Susan Dotson-Smith
12th Judicial District	Talmage Baggett
11B Judicial District of the Fourth Division of the Superior Court	Thomas H. Lock
12th Judicial District	Toni King
19B Judicial District of the Fifth Division of the Superior Court	Vance B. Long
10th Judicial District	Vince M. Rozier, Jr.
28th Judicial District	Ward D. Scott
22B Judicial District	Wayne L. Michael
18th Judicial District	Wendy M. Enochs
25th Judicial District	Wesley W. Barkley
20A Judicial District	William C. Tucker
23rd Judicial District	William F. Brooks
13th Judicial District	William F. Fairley
19A Judicial District	William G. Hamby, Jr.
30A Judicial District of the Eighth Division of the Superior Court	William H. Coward

Primary

For candidate lists and results from the judicial primary on May 6, 2014, please see: North Carolina judicial primary elections, 2014.

Process

Five Things to Know About Election Changes in North Carolina

Primary

Judges in North Carolina participate in nonpartisan elections in even-numbered years. If more than two candidates apply for the same position, they must run in the primary election. The two candidates with the highest votes in the primary advance to the general election. However, if there are only one or two candidates, they are automatically advanced to the general election.

Second primary

In some situations, there may also be a second primary, which is similar to a runoff election in other states. The potential for a second primary depends on whether the candidates in a particular race receive a "substantial plurality," or at least 40% of the vote. That 40% is required for a primary candidate to be nominated to the general election. Thus, if there are only two candidates running for a single seat, at least one of them will receive this substantial plurality and a second primary is not necessary. However, if there are multiple candidates running for one seat in the primary and no candidate receives at least 40% of the vote, the top two candidates advance to a second primary, though the second-place candidate must request such a primary.

In 2014, no second primaries for judicial offices were requested, though there were two primary races where no candidates received a substantial majority (28th District, Clontz seat and 3A District, Teague seat).

Filing

The filing fees for judicial candidates amount to approximately 1% of the annual salary for the office sought by the candidates. In lieu of this fee, a candidate may file a petition signed by at least 5% of the registered voters for the area in which the candidate is seeking election.

To run for judge in North Carolina, a candidate must be at least 21 years old, a registered voter, and a resident of the district in which they seek to run at the time of filing.

Noteworthy events

The following articles were current as of the dates listed.

Political party switch by judicial candidates makes headlines in nonpartisan election September 11, 2014

Click for story→

See also: JP Election Brief: Party switches and the soaring cost of campaigning 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. Gore formally switched his party to Republican on August 15. 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. 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." 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. In an official statement, Prince assured voters that her political party has nothing to do with her job as a judge. She said she would uphold the law and support all who appear in her courtroom regardless of political party. She ended her official statement with the following: "As a candidate for re-election in a nonpartisan race, I seek the support and vote of Republicans, Democrats and Unaffiliated voters alike."

Two North Carolina candidates appointed August 28, 2014

Click for story→

See also: JP Election Brief: Florida primary results are in; supreme court races are heating up 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 ahead of the November election. Both candidates will now be listed as an incumbent on the November ballots. 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: “ I look forward to his work as Chief Justice as he draws upon his more than 20 years of judicial experience. ” Martin's opponent, Judge Lewis, said the appointment was "nothing more than pure politics in an effort to give my opponent an advantage—the upper hand—in the race." 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. 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. Hunter faced Judge Sam Ervin in November. Ervin previously ran for election to the supreme court in 2012, but lost to Paul Martin Newby. Though North Carolina's judicial elections are nonpartisan, Ervin was considered to be a Democrat, while Hunter was considered to be a Republican. At the time of the election, Republicans in North Carolina, in addition to the seat of the governor, also have a majority in both legislative houses, as well as on the supreme court. This is called a Trifecta Plus. The court in 2014 was composed of four Republican-leaning justices and four Democratic-leaning justices. Three of the four seats up for election in 2014 were held by Democrats.

Special election for appellate judgeship scheduled July 24, 2014

Click for story→

See also: JP Election Brief: Runoffs, retentions and a special election North Carolina voters got an election added to their November ballots following a recent retirement announcement by one of the state's 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. Three seats were already up for election on the state's court of appeals. Judge Mark Davis sought his first full term, running against Paul Holcombe. Lucy Inman and William Southern ran to replace retiring Judge Robert C. Hunter. Lastly, Judge Donna Stroud was unopposed for re-election. The addition of the special election for Martin's seat meant that approximately 27 percent of the seats on the North Carolina Court of Appeals were up for election in 2014.

Voter ID law challenged in North Carolina July 3, 2014

Click for story→

See also: JP Election Brief: Election laws challenged 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 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. The requirement would not take effect until 2016. In 2014, the law was set to: reduce the early voting period by seven days, eliminate some same-day voter registration during early voting, cause ballots cast in the right county but wrong precinct to be discarded, and allow 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." The Obama administration and others who opposed the law said that it disenfranchised minority citizens. 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." During the May primary, a dry run was held in which poll workers asked voters some questions about photo ID's, even though voters were not required to have one to cast a ballot. Though this was not a scientific study, 75 percent of those polled said the instructions regarding voter ID's were clear. However, 44 percent of the voters polled said that the changes made them feel less confident in the fairness of the voting rules. Broken down further by ethnicity, a minority of both black and white voters felt the rules made them feel more confident in the security of elections; 44 percent of white voters and 20 percent of black voters said it increased their confidence in the system.

Highlights from North Carolina's primary May 8, 2014

Click for story→

See also: JP Election Brief: Judicial voting round-up Amidst the primary races that were decided in various states on May 6, 2014 was the primary contest for Justice Robin Hudson's seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court. The race for Hudson's seat was the only primary race for a seat on the state's high court this year. In the state's judicial elections, the two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary would advance to the general election. Hudson made it past the primary and ran 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. After election night, it was reported that Democrats accounted for approximately 42 percent of the voters, while Republicans represented about 31 percent. 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.

North Carolina judicial candidate rankings released for 2014 May 1, 2014

Click for story→

See also: JP Election Brief: Primaries galore 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. 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. 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. 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. View the full survey here.

Judges speak out against new campaign funding rules April 3, 2014

Click for story→

See also: JP Election Brief: Who's qualified? Courts, candidates and special interest groups all want a say Recent changes to judicial campaign finance rules allowed private donors and big-money interests to 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 said that voters would have to be 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. The Democrats expressed concerns that the changes opened up the possibility that moneyed interests, including out-of-state groups, could outspend opponents to achieve partisan outcomes. 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 emphasized 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. Four of the supreme court's seven seats are up for grabs in this election cycle. The changes in finance rules were part of a bill that included a provision to require voter ID at the polls. The panel of judges asked voters to be diligent when voting, making sure to know the judicial candidates on the ballot, rather than leaving them blank. "The message is: please don’t forget the judges," said Judge Davis.

Running for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court March 20, 2014

Click for story→

See also: JP Election Brief: Controversy around judicial election laws 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. Almost $4 million dollars were spent on the race. 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. Each candidate had to raise all their own funds. 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.

Former clean elections law worked, study says March 6, 2014

Click for story→

See also: JP Election Brief: Texas primary recap, election funding and participation A recent study concluded that North Carolina’s eight-year-old clean elections law had done what it was designed to do: reduce the influence of private money in statewide judicial elections. The law was recently terminated by state assembly and governor. 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. 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. 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. 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. Still, the General Assembly of North Carolina terminated the program as part of a larger voter identification bill in August 2013. 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 The study by the National Institute On Money in State Politics concluded that “future campaigns—without public funds—will reveal whether candidates for the Tar Heel State’s highest court will revert to relying heavily on private contributions and/or their own pocketbooks.”

See also

• North Carolina judicial elections
• Judicial selection in North Carolina
• North Carolina Supreme Court elections, 2014

External links

• North Carolina State Board of Elections