Judicial Campaign Reform
NC created the nation's first Voter-Owned Elections program for statewide judicial races.
In 2004, North Carolina implemented the nation's first “Clean Elections” or “Voter-Owned Elections” program for statewide judicial candidates. The N.C. Public Campaign Fund is an alternative to the traditional campaign method of judges raising money from the attorneys and business interests who appear in their courts.
The program replaces this conflict of interest-laden system with one that allows candidates to receive a public campaign grant in exchange for accepting strict spending and fundraising limits. National experts have applauded the “strong and effective” program, and it is viewed as a model by other states seeking to address the corrosive impact of the money chase in their judicial elections.
Program Details
Candidates for the NC Supreme Court and Court of Appeals can qualify for a substantial campaign grant from the Public Campaign Fund if they abide by spending limits.and raise a specified number of small donations from NC voters. A qualified candidate can receive additional funds if a privately financed challenger or outside group exceeds the spending limit. Click here for details on the program.
Our analysis of the program’s first three election cycles (2004-2008) shows that 78% of the candidates for the NC Supreme Court and Court of Appeals qualified for grants from the Public Campaign Fund. It’s being used by Democrats and Republicans, incumbents and challengers, blacks and whites, men and women.
In fact, a majority of our state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals members are now Voter-Owned participants, meaning they received most of their campaign money from thousands of small donors and the public instead of from the lawyers who argue cases before their courts. As another report demonstrates, the percent of funds in appellate races supplied by attorneys and special-interest groups has plummeted from 73% of the donations in the election before the program began to 14% after it started.
Educating Voters
The N.C. Public Campaign Fund also pays for a Voter Guide with information about the courts and candidates. (Click here for a link to a large PDF file of the 2008 Guide.) Four million copies are mailed to households across the state before elections -- an important service since statewide judicial candidates are often unknown to the public at large and people need a way to review their qualifications for these important high court seats.
Bipartisan Oversight
A distinguished bipartisan panel oversees the program with the State Board of Elections. It is headed by Willis Whichard, former judge and retired Dean of the Campbell University Law School.
Check Your 3 for NC!
The program won't work unless hundreds of thousands of taxpayers show their support by choosing "Yes" on a check-off box on their state income tax form. Checking this box does not change your tax bill or tax refund in any way; it just transfers $3 into the Public Campaign Fund from what you pay anyway.
A little over half of the funds needed for the judicial public financing program and Voter Guide come from the voluntary check-off. The other funds come from a $50 surcharge on the annual fee that attorneys pay to the N.C. State Bar.
A Cautionary Tale
A recent case in West Virginia – which lacks a judicial VOE program – illustrates the perils of ignoring the role money can play in electing judges and influencing decisions. This case involved a West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals judge named Brent Benjamin who, as a candidate for the court in 2004, benefited from $3 million in campaign spending by the CEO of the A.T. Massey Coal Company Inc. Much of the $3 million was funneled through an advocacy group for attack ads against Benjamin‘s opponent. After Benjamin was elected to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the A.T. Massey Coal Company appealed a $50 million judgment against it to that same court. Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself and twice voted to overturn the judgment against Massey, resulting in Massey winning the appeal. Massey’s opponents, in turn, appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 in June of 2009 that judicial candidates who receive “extraordinary assistance” from donors should not participate in cases that are "pending or imminent" involving those donors. The Supreme Court felt Benjamin’s participation in the case triggered a "probability of bias" and "a serious risk of actual bias" that could have undermined the constitutional right of Massey's opponents to a fair and impartial hearing. They urged judges to take into consideration their campaign contributors, the size of the donations and the stake donors have in pending cases and to recuse themselves, if necessary – but they still left that judgment call up to the individual judge. It was a very narrow verdict for impartial justice – and it illustrates why VOE is a vital tool to keep our judiciary free from corruption.
Useful Links
- Review this Q&A on the check-off and Public Campaign Fund from the State Board of Elections.
- Use these talking points for a letter to the editor supporting the Fund.
- This small "buck slip" gives the key information about the check-off. Contact us for quantities of these buck slips.
- Click here to view a 30-second Public Service Announcement about the Fund.
- Here’s a profile-in-numbers of the Fund’s success from 2004 to 2008.