Party politics impact state Supreme Court race

By Michelle Saxton
Thursday, October 28, 2010

It may be a nonpartisan race, but an open seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court has some local Republican candidates eyeing more than a majority win in the General Assembly.

The seat in question belongs to outgoing state Supreme Court Associate Justice Edward Brady, who is not seeking re-election. State Court of Appeals Judges Robert "Bob" Hunter and Barbara Jackson are vying for that spot on the bench.

At a GOP (Grand Old Party) rally in Wilmington on Saturday, Oct. 16, that included a number of Republican candidates and party officials, some speakers voiced support for Judge Jackson, saying if she lost the race the party would lose a majority in the seven-member state Supreme Court when redistricting occurs.

Congressional and state districts are redrawn every 10 years, state Rep. Danny McComas, R-New Hanover, said Monday, Oct. 25, when asked about the issue.

"If we control the House and we control the Senate, then the only mechanism open for the Democrats to fight would be to take it to the courts," said McComas, who is unopposed in the District 19 state House race and runs the MCO Transport trucking and warehouse in Wilmington. "And if they control the courts, the Supreme Court mainly, then they would have the opportunity to defeat whatever we do."

The last time Republicans controlled both chambers in the North Carolina General Assembly was 1898, McComas said. He added the GOP believes it can win majorities in both the 120-member state House and 50-member state Senate in the upcoming election.

Whoever controls redistricting will control the makeup of what the Legislature could be in the years to come, both in Washington and on the state level, McComas said, adding that Gov. Beverly Perdue, a Democrat, has no veto power on redistricting.

"That’s one of the few things that she has no say on," McComas said. "It is the big thing."

Christie Cameron, clerk of the state Supreme Court, said she could not comment about whether the high court’s makeup after the race could be a redistricting issue.

"All I can really tell you is we did have redistricting cases come to the Supreme Court after the 2000 Census and redistricting at the Legislature," Cameron said Tuesday, Oct. 26.

Any number of General Assembly decisions could be affected, Wilmington attorney Thom Goolsby, the Republican state Senate candidate for the 9th District, said Monday, Oct. 25.

"Our courts are the ones who rule on what our laws mean," Goolsby said.

Beth Dawson, a Republican and retired banker who is running for the District 18 state House seat, stated in an e-mail Tuesday, Oct. 26, "We should all support judges who will uphold the Constitution and law as they are written."

Neither Goolsby’s Democrat opponent, Jim Leutze, nor Dawson’s Democrat opponent, Susi Hamilton, were aware of any concerns about how the Supreme Court race could affect the General Assembly.

"This is the first thing I’ve heard about the state Supreme Court race being an issue in the overall election midterm," Hamilton said on Tuesday, Oct. 26.

"No matter what the justices’ political affiliation is, their obligation is to uphold the law," said Hamilton, who runs the consulting company Hamilton Planning. She added that any sort of gerrymandering would be in conflict with that obligation.

"The judges’ races are nonpartisan," Hamilton added "Shame on the Republican party for trying to insert politics into a nonpartisan race."

The judicial decision-making process is intended to be nonpartisan as well, according to a statement released Wednesday, Oct. 27, by Sharon Gladwell, communications director for the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.

"I’m sure if you take a look at the influence of the Supreme Court and its decisions and the impact it’s had on things like election races and others, the Supreme Court swings a pretty big stick," Leutze, former chancellor of the University of North Carolina Wilmington, said on Friday, Oct. 22.

"One would always hope that the court would not be partisan in the decisions that they would make, that they would view the merits of the case rather than have an ideological starting point by which they made their judgments," Leutze added.