A measure to scrap across-the-board judicial elections in favor of an appointment-retention system could face a tough sell in the North Carolina General Assembly. The idea has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle.

At the same time, a bill restoring partisan labels to judicial races has gained bipartisan support, boosting its chances of winning approval this session.

Right now, Tar Heel voters directly elect candidates to all levels of judicial office. Races officially have been nonpartisan since 2002, although voters sometimes can glean information on a candidate’s partisan leanings from endorsements and voter guides.

House Bill 325, Judicial Appointment/Voter Confirmation, would take the initial decision out of the hands of voters and leave it up to the state’s chief executive. Under the bill, the governor would appoint judges and justices to the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court who would later face a retention election. Superior and district court judgeships would remain election-based.

“Most appellate court judges get on the court anyway by appointment, and then they run for a full election against an opponent,” said one of the bill’s primary sponsors, House Majority Leader Paul “Skip” Stam, R-Wake.

In a boon for conservatives, the measure also would repeal the N.C. Public Campaign Fund, a pot of taxpayer money that less well-connected judicial candidates can use to fund their campaigns.

Stam said an appointment-retention approach would be far better than continuing with nonpartisan elections, a method he called the “world’s worst system” for filling the judicial ranks.

“We have come close to electing, in the last seven or eight years, really bad judges because of that system,” he said.

Even so, H.B. 325 might be a nonstarter in the legislature since it has raised concerns from top lawmakers from both parties.

“We’ve seen, at least in the last 20 years at the national level, that appointing judges doesn’t take the politics out of it. It just moves it somewhere else,” said Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham.

Senate Minority Leader Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe, said he would support a return to partisan labels in judicial races, provided public financing remains lawful. But he was reticent to give a nod to an appointment system.

“I really think judges need to stay hitched to the people,” Nesbitt said.

Republican leaders have predicted bipartisan support for another measure, Senate Bill 47, that would return partisan identifiers to races for every level of judicial office. The bill was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and could be brought up for a vote as early as tomorrow.

Nesbitt praised the bill during the committee hearing and, later, at a press conference with reporters.

“I don’t think having a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ beside your name creates a perception of undue influence,” he said.

Stam said he supports partisan judicial elections, but he doubts the bill will get enough Democratic support in the House to overcome an inevitable veto from Gov. Bev Perdue.

Meanwhile, H.B. 325 was introduced and assigned to the House Rules Committee March 14. It could come up in committee as early as Wednesday.

David N. Bass is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.