Statewide Survey Shows Deep Concern about
N.C. Judicial Elections
For immediate release.
May 9, 2002
Contact: Jesse Rutledge, N.C. Center for Voter Education, (919) 839-1200
Statewide Survey Shows Deep Concern about N.C. Judicial Elections
RALEIGH – North Carolina voters exhibit great concern about the state of judicial elections and are broadly supportive of campaign reform for the judiciary, according to a survey of 600 likely voters commissioned by the N.C. Center for Voter Education and conducted by American Viewpoint of Alexandria, Va.
The most disturbing result of the public opinion study is the number of people -- 47 percent -- who believe that judicial elections do not reflect the will of the average person. While voters tend to have faith in the state's courts many question how winning judges are elected, and find fault with the current system.
Of primary concern to voters is the increasing role of money in judicial elections. Eighty-four percent of voters are concerned that lawyers are some of the biggest campaign contributors to judicial candidates, and 78 percent think that campaign contributions influence judges’ decisions “a great deal” or “some”.
Voters perceive the role of money not just in terms of potential influence on judicial candidates, but also as a barrier to electability: 85 percent are concerned that because the cost of running for judge in North Carolina can cost over $1 million, some people who would make good judges don’t run for office.
"Even though North Carolina has had a remarkably scandal-free judiciary, the public is highly suspicious of the potential for corruption. People hold judges to a much higher standard than other elected officials, and are very alarmed about potential conflicts of interest in the judiciary. It causes them to question whether they will get a fair hearing," said Chris Heagarty, executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education.
Heagarty cited additional data that showed 58 percent of those polled believe that that are two systems of justice in North Carolina, one of the rich and powerful and one for everyone else.
Of equally high concern to voters is the influence of politics over judicial elections. Eighty-nine percent of voters agree that judges should run in non-partisan elections, with 79 percent of voters in strong agreement. Many voters -- 79 percent -- also felt that the courts should be free of political and public pressure.
"It seems our courts are often getting drawn into political conflicts. Even if judicial decisions are nonpartisan and based on law, rather than the political philosophy of individual judges, the public seems to have little tolerance for the appearance of partisan influence," said Heagarty.
The survey also concludes that there is a significant lack of information available to voters on judicial candidates and campaigns. A majority of voters -- 57 percent -- reported having little or no information at all about judicial candidates in the last election, while only 6 percent reported having “a great deal of information."
An overwhelming majority -- 90 percent -- are concerned that because voters have little information, judges are sometimes selected for reasons other than their qualifications. A similarly high number -- 91 percent -- felt that North Carolina should provide voter guides, like many other states, to help inform voters about judicial candidates.
The N.C. Center for Voter Education tested proposed solutions to these problems in their poll. One proposal that has been advocated calls for selecting judges based on a merit system and having them appointed by the governor. Such a change would require a change in the North Carolina constitution and would require a vote of approval by the state's citizen. Prospects for such public approval appear grim according to the survey.
Voters continue to want to elect their judges by an astonishing margin of more than 5 to 1 (81 percent support election; 15 percent support appointment).
Though voters want to retain their right to elect judges, they do seem willing to support other proposed changes that would address the influence of money and politics over judicial campaigns.
A judicial reform proposal currently in the legislature (SB 1054) is favored by 71 percent of voters. The proposal provides for a number of changes to appellate-level elections, including a voluntary public financing system, the creation of a judicial candidates voter guide, and non-partisan elections.
Interestingly, there is no variance in support between Republicans (70 percent) and Democrats (71 percent) or between white voters (72 percent) and black voters (71 percent). In fact, there is little variance among any key voting blocs.
"Not only is there strong public support for this proposal," said Heagarty, "but voters have actually expressed a surprising mandate -- they want action on this proposal and they want it soon."
More than three quarters of voters (77 percent) agree that regardless of other important issues facing the state, the Governor and legislature need to address judicial reform before the next election. Almost as many (72 percent) feel that North Carolina should adopt judicial campaign reform to avoid corruption and scandals that have occurred in other states.
The North Carolina Center for Voter Education commissioned American Viewpoint to conduct a survey of 600 likely North Carolina voters. Interviews were conducted via telephone April 29 through May 2, 2002. The margin of error for the entire sample is +/- 4 percent, at the 95 percent confidence level.
The N.C. Center for Voter Education is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization based in Raleigh dedicated to improving the quality and responsiveness of North Carolina’s election system.
American Viewpoint, based in Alexandria, VA, has conducted statewide research in 48 states. Their numerous political clients have included Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Elizabeth Dole’s 2000 Presidential Campaign.
###
© Copyright 2008 N.C. Center for Voter Education
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200
www.ncvotered.com