Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Supreme court incumbent ousted in North Carolina; incumbents prevail in three other most-watched state supreme court races
| 2016 State Judicial Elections |
|---|
 |
| Part 1: Overview |
| Part 2: Supreme Courts |
| Part 3: Partisanship |
| Part 4: Changes in 2016 |
By Cindy Kehler
Among the many state-level elections held on November 8, 2016, judicial elections for state supreme court justices and state court of appeals judges were some of the quietest. Judicial elections are typically routine affairs in which the most frequent result is the re-election or retention of an incumbent judge. But sometimes the results are surprising.
Ballotpedia identified four state supreme court races as key elections to watch in November 2016: North Carolina, Ohio, Kansas, and Washington. In Kansas and Washington, incumbent supreme court justices were targeted for removal by coordinated opposition. All the incumbents in both states were retained or re-elected. In Ohio, two supreme court seats were vacated by retiring justices and contested by Republican and Democratic candidates. The Republicans were elected, preserving that party's 6-1 majority on the court. In North Carolina, one seat was contested by an incumbent and a challenger after a successful lawsuit over instituting yes-no retention elections in 2016. The incumbent was defeated.
North Carolina
- Incumbent Republican-affiliated Justice Robert H. Edmunds, Jr. was defeated by the challenger, Democratic-affiliated Judge Michael R. Morgan.
In early 2016, Justice Robert H. Edmunds, Jr. of the North Carolina Supreme Court faced a retention election—a yes-no ballot question that meant he would not have to run against a challenger for his seat in November. The retention law was passed in 2015; until its passage, North Carolina held nonpartisan competitive elections for judges.
In March 2016, however, a three-judge panel of Wake County Superior Court judges ruled this law unconstitutional, stating that "a retention election is not an 'election' for the office of supreme court justice as required by the constitution."[1][2] The plaintiffs had argued that because retention held the sitting judge up to a yes-no vote rather than a competitive election, the law unconstitutionally added a requirement for a person to be eligible to run for a judgeship: incumbency. The law provided that retention elections would be held only regarding sitting justices who had been elected by competitive ballot once, whether at the end of the previous justice's term or following a midterm appointment.[3] After the initial election, the justice would stand for retention rather than election, with no opponent. The plaintiffs argued that this nevertheless violated the state constitutional requirement for election of justices.
The state appealed the ruling to the North Carolina Supreme Court.[4] On April 13, 2016, the court heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of the retention election law. Justice Robert Edmunds, still planning to run for re-election, was recused from hearing the case. On May 6, the remaining justices split 3-3 on the question, and therefore the lower court's ruling, overturning the law, was upheld.[5]
Three challengers filed to run in a contested election against Justice Edmunds, including attorney Sabra Faires, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. A primary election held in June narrowed the field to Justice Edmunds and challenger Judge Michael R. Morgan.
Judge Morgan, a Democratic-affiliated judge, defeated Justice Edmunds, a Republican-affiliated judge, by almost 9 percentage points in a hard-fought campaign that pitted Edmunds' record on the supreme court bench with Morgan's record as a superior court judge. The political balance of the North Carolina Supreme Court will thus shift from 4-3 Republican-affiliated judges to 4-3 Democratic-affiliated judges.
Ohio
- Incumbent Republican Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor ran unopposed and won re-election. For two seats held by retiring justices, Republican candidates Pat Fischer and Pat DeWine defeated their Democratic opponents, John P. O'Donnell and Cynthia Rice.
In Ohio, state court general elections are nonpartisan, but the primary elections are partisan; therefore, partisan affiliations and the political balance of the courts are known. Republican Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor ran unopposed and was re-elected to her seat. Republican Justices Paul Pfeifer and Judith Ann Lanzinger declined to run for re-election, leaving their seats open.
Republican Pat Fischer defeated Democrat John P. O'Donnell in a very close election for Judith Ann Lanzinger's seat. Less than 1 point separated the candidates with 100 percent of the vote reporting.
Republican Pat DeWine defeated Democrat Cynthia Rice by a wide margin of 13 points for Paul Pfeifer's seat, despite DeWine's state bar judicial rating of "not recommended."
Republicans held a 6-1 majority on the Ohio Supreme Court heading into the election; the balance remains the same following the election.
Kansas
- All five Kansas Supreme Court justices standing for retention—Carol Beier, Lawton Nuss, Marla Luckert, Caleb Stegall, and Daniel Biles—were retained.
Two groups in Kansas led opposing campaigns in 2016 concerning the retention of four justices—Carol Beier, Marla Luckert, Daniel Biles, and Chief Justice Lawton Nuss. Kansans for Justice campaigned for the removal of the justices; Kansans for Fair Courts campaigned for their retention. Justice Caleb Stegall was not targeted for removal.
Kansans for Justice based its campaign for the removal of the justices on the supreme court's handling of the Carr brothers' criminal case.[6] The Carr brothers killed five people, among many other crimes, in 2000.[7][8] They were sentenced to death.[7] In 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned their death sentences.[7][9] The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Kansas Supreme Court decision vacating the Carrs' death penalties in January 2016.[7][9]
The group Kansans for Life joined Kansans for Justice in the campaign against the justices based on the justices' rulings in abortion cases.[10] The Kansas Republican Party was also against retention for the four justices.[11]
The group Kansans for Fair Courts campaign objected to calls for removal of the justices.[12] Four former governors of Kansas campaigned with Kansans for Fair Courts for retention of the justices. Democrats Kathleen Sebelius and John Carlin and Republicans Mike Hayden and Bill Graves made a series of appearances in September, coordinated by Kansans for Fair Courts, to urge voters to retain the justices.[13]
School funding has also been a contentious issue in Kansas, with the state supreme court at the heart of it. In a battle between the state legislature and the state supreme court, the court threatened to stop schools from opening in the fall of 2016 if the legislature did not come up with a school funding plan that met the court's requirements. School closing was averted by action taken in a special legislative session, but also discussed at that session were bills to create a new court higher than the state supreme court.
Neither Kansans for Justice nor Kansans for Fair Courts, nor corporations supporting the retention campaigns of the individual justices, are required by state law to disclose their spending or donations.
Despite coordinated opposition, all five justices were retained. This preserves the perfect record of supreme court judicial retention in Kansas: No supreme court justice has ever failed to be retained in the state.
Washington
- Incumbent Chief Justice Barbara Madsen and Justices Mary Yu and Charlie Wiggins each defeated a challenger.
This was the first year since the 1990s in which all three state supreme court justices up for re-election faced opponents.[14] At least one justice in every election typically runs unopposed, but this year all three incumbents drew challengers. Republican state Representative Matt Manweller said he and other lawmakers actively recruited candidates to run against the justices.[14] This is partly because of the court's decisions in the long-running school funding case McCleary v. Washington, over which the court drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats for holding the state in contempt of court, and in a separate case about the state funding of charter schools. Washington's supreme court elections are nonpartisan, and the candidates carry no partisan affiliation.
Those in favor of replacing the justices said the court overstepped its boundaries into legislation and policymaking and failed to respect the autonomy of the state legislature.[14] In the McCleary school funding case, the court both found the state government in contempt and fined the state $100,000 per day until the state complied with the court's orders.[15][16]
In a separate case, the court ruled unconstitutional the state funding of charter schools, right before those schools were set to open in 2015.
The political action committee arm of the group Stand for Children spent at least $116,000 promoting the campaign of Greg Zempel, who challenged Chief Justice Barbara Madsen for her seat on the court.[17] Madsen authored the court's 2015 decision declaring Washington's charter schools, in their form at that time, unconstitutional. The legislature passed a new bill in 2016 that allowed charter schools to continue; opponents threatened to sue over this law as well.[17] Stand for Children's spending on Zempel's campaign is funded by several of the backers of charter schools, who were opposed to the court's 2015 decision. The primary donors include Connie Ballmer, wife of former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer; Reed Hastings, founder and CEO of Netflix; and Vulcan Inc., owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. Vulcan and Ballmer were also among the primary backers of the ballot initiative that paved the way for the charter schools.[17]
The Brennan Center for Justice notes that at least half a million dollars was spent on advertising in these races, supporting the challengers to the justices.[18] Microsoft founder Bill Gates was among those donating to Citizens for Working Courts, a PAC supporting Dave Larson, who challenged incumbent Charlie Wiggins.[18][19]
Despite the coordinated challenge to the incumbent justices and the unusually high amounts of money poured into the challengers' campaigns, the incumbent justices all defeated their challengers by wide margins: all by 25 percentage points or more.
Footnotes
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "North Carolina State Court Invalidates New Law Providing for Retention Elections for State Supreme Court Justices," March 4, 2016
- ↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "North Carolina State Constitution," accessed March 7, 2016
- ↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "Session Law 2015-66," accessed November 11, 2016
- ↑ The News & Observer, "New uncertainties about NC Supreme Court elections," March 11, 2016
- ↑ Hastings Tribune, "Court tie means no retention elections for justices, for now," May 6, 2016
- ↑ Kansans for Justice, "Injustice from Our Justices," accessed August 25, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 The Topeka Capital-Journal, "Group linked to Carr brothers' victims pushes to oust Kansas Supreme Court justices," August 10, 2016
- ↑ The Topeka Capital-Journal, "Carr brothers found guilty," November 5, 2002
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 SCOTUSblog, "Opinion analysis: Few sparks, eight votes for the state in Kansas capital cases," January 20, 2016
- ↑ Better Judges for Kansas, accessed August 30, 2016
- ↑ The Wichita Eagle, "High stakes in Kansas Supreme Court retention vote," September 5, 2016
- ↑ Kansans for Fair Courts, accessed August 25, 2016
- ↑ Wyandotte Daily Online, "Four former governors hit the road to support Kansas Supreme Court," September 7, 2016
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 The News Tribune, "Controversial school-funding rulings prompt crowded Supreme Court races," June 3, 2016
- ↑ The Seattle Times, "Contempt ruling ups ante in fight to fund public schools," September 12, 2014
- ↑ The Seattle Times, "School funding back on table as court fines state $100,000 a day," August 13, 2015
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 The News Tribune, "Charter-school backers spending $116,000 to try to unseat state Supreme Court justice," July 28, 2016
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Brennan Center for Justice, "Buying Time 2016-Washington," November 7, 2016
- ↑ Seattle Times, "Bill Gates, others donate nearly $1M to defeat Supreme Court Justice Wiggins," October 26, 2016
| ||||||||||
