N&O: Veto override in North Carolina means judicial elections are now partisan

[Virginiá]

Veto override means voters will know judges’ party affiliations

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article140327188.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, the NCGOP did this almost solely as a response to Morgan's (a Democrat) successful State Supreme Court election, where Republicans convinced themselves that he only won because voters thought he was a Republican. As is usual now, they set out to change the way judicial elections because they lost one important election.

[Green Line]

Should of elected the other judge.

[Deblano]

Man, the GOPNC sounds like a bunch of corrupt sour grapes.

I'm thankful that my state's GOP branch is far more sane compared to them.

[Anna Komnene]

There shouldn't even be judicial elections, imo.  It defeats the purpose of a judiciary to force them to campaign, and 99% of people don't even know who they are anyway.

If we must have judicial elections, I guess I actually agree with the NC GOP even if their reasoning is revolting.  There is no such thing as a non-partisan election.  That is just silly.  If there is an election with more than one candidate, people are going to campaign.  How else are they expected to win the election, by relying on the people that research and compare the resumes of the judges?

We have judicial elections here in NY, and it's really hard to get info on these races even if you try.  The judge candidates hardly ever say anything of substance in their campaign, just some generic platitudes.  They are supposed to uphold the law, what else are they going to say?  At least with the party labels, it can give people an idea of which candidate might be closer to their views.  Besides, we all know that even if they don't have party labels, either the parties or pertinent interest groups will endorse and campaign on behalf of certain candidates.  So may as well just let everyone know who's supporting what instead of just limiting that information to insiders and activists.

[Virginiá]

That's pretty decent point Siren!

Honestly, the main reason I am against partisan judicial elections is because I am against judicial elections in general, and the partisan labels just serve to help people keep their choices "tribalized." Other than the desire to have at least the feeling of control over judges, I can't see why we'd have a system to elect them. That only seems to create a situation where decisions are influenced by the desire to continue holding office, and judges who may need to make tough decisions may avoid that if they think the public will not like it. That's a huge conflict of interest.

But in this case, the motive alone is enough to make me against it. They don't have any particular reason for wanting it this way other than they lost control of the State Supreme Court and they are now desperately trying to change the rules to ensure they win the seats up next time. It's those kinds of partisan games with election law I hate the most. They can't just lose and vow to work harder next time - no, instead they use their existing power with the state to just change the rules until they do win. It's a sickness America has had for too long.

[Indy Texas]

Man, the GOPNC sounds like a bunch of corrupt sour grapes.

I'm thankful that my state's GOP branch is far more sane compared to them.

Kookinelli....that racist black guy.....the corrupt McDonnells....yeah, totally sane.

[Gass3268]

Man, the GOPNC sounds like a bunch of corrupt sour grapes.

I'm thankful that my state's GOP branch is far more sane compared to them.

Kookinelli....that racist black guy.....the corrupt McDonnells....yeah, totally sane.

But even that seems tame compared to North Carolina.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Judicial elections are a terrible idea, though for that matter appointment and confirmation of the judiciary really does not work either.

[windjammer]

Veto override means voters will know judges’ party affiliations

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article140327188.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, the NCGOP did this almost solely as a response to Morgan's (a Democrat) successful State Supreme Court election, where Republicans convinced themselves that he only won because voters thought he was a Republican. As is usual now, they set out to change the way judicial elections because they lost one important election.

Tbh, I think it will backfire on them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We actually have non partisan elections for most offices in California. Only federal and state offices are partisan. Of course everyone knew that Gavin Newsom was the Democrat in the 2003 San Francisco mayor runoff, and all the top Democrats were desperately coming in to campaign for him so that he wouldn't lose to Matt Gonzales, a Green party candidate.

[Deblano]

Man, the GOPNC sounds like a bunch of corrupt sour grapes.

I'm thankful that my state's GOP branch is far more sane compared to them.

Kookinelli....that racist black guy.....the corrupt McDonnells....yeah, totally sane.

But even that seems tame compared to North Carolina.

[Mr. Smith]

We actually have non partisan elections for most offices in California. Only federal and state offices are partisan. Of course everyone knew that Gavin Newsom was the Democrat in the 2003 San Francisco mayor runoff, and all the top Democrats were desperately coming in to campaign for him so that he wouldn't lose to Matt Gonzales, a Green party candidate.

What a mistake that turned out to be.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

lol nc gop

[Maxwell]

Judicial elections are already horrifying enough even without partisan labels.

[OneJ]

There shouldn't even be judicial elections, imo.  It defeats the purpose of a judiciary to force them to campaign, and 99% of people don't even know who they are anyway.

If we must have judicial elections, I guess I actually agree with the NC GOP even if their reasoning is revolting.  There is no such thing as a non-partisan election.  That is just silly.  If there is an election with more than one candidate, people are going to campaign.  How else are they expected to win the election, by relying on the people that research and compare the resumes of the judges?

We have judicial elections here in NY, and it's really hard to get info on these races even if you try.  The judge candidates hardly ever say anything of substance in their campaign, just some generic platitudes.  They are supposed to uphold the law, what else are they going to say?  At least with the party labels, it can give people an idea of which candidate might be closer to their views.  Besides, we all know that even if they don't have party labels, either the parties or pertinent interest groups will endorse and campaign on behalf of certain candidates.  So may as well just let everyone know who's supporting what instead of just limiting that information to insiders and activists.

I agree. A judiciary position shouldn't be involved in elections since the job itself deals with judging fairly and not partisanly (I know that's not a word).

Plus, like Siren pointed out, the candidates don't push themselves out more for the people to know well and these elections often have low turnout anyway.

[Nyvin]

Judicial Elections are a horribly dumb idea to begin with.   

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am so fing done with this state.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I am so fing done with this state.

This. We make me sick. Also:

lol nc gop