The N.C. Senate Monday night sent two proposed constitutional amendments to the House.

The chamber passed House Bill 551, “Strengthening Victim’s Rights,” called Marsy’s Law by supporters, 45-1. It also passed Senate Bill 814, the “Judicial Vacancy Sunshine Amendment,” 34-13.

Marsy’s Law

H.B. 551 would aim to help families of violent crime victims access court information, Carolina Journal reports. Critics of the amendment say it would be a burden on the judicial system. The state’s courts project enforcement of the law could cost $30.5 million per year.

Sen. Toby Fitch, D-Wilson, was the lone “no” vote on the bill,

“Here we go again,” Fitch said. “[It’s] certainly a political propaganda situation. We are the legislative branch, where we make laws. We really ought to be careful how we step into the judiciary to practice law. It’d be fine, but i see a trend coming about this day, and I predict that we will look back in a couple of years, and we will say ‘why in the world did we do this.”

Sen. Tamara Barringer, R-Wake, said the amendment was serious.

“This is not a ploy, this is a reality,” she said. “These victims need respect. They need to have their dignity, and we need to give them notice so they can protect themselves if they need, or at least feel comfortable… so that these victims can get on with their lives.”

Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, shared the story of a time when he was a crime victim. He said he had once been shot and nearly killed while operating a convenience store, so he could relate to the crime victims the bill would help.

McKissick warned, however, that the amendment could be an issue when changing court dates and letting suspects out on bond.

“If you’ve got to provide notice before you take care of all of those types of matters, that’s burdensome,” McKissick said. “If I look at the number of district attorneys that will be needed to monitor the onslaught of demand that’s being created by this constitutional amendment, it is profound and significant.”

The Senate amended H.B. 551. It will return to the House for concurrence.

Judicial vacancies

S.B. 814 would grant the General Assembly influence in the selection of judges to replace empty seats on the bench, 34-13. Currently, the governor has the sole power to vet and appoint replacements.

The proposed changes:

  • Creation of a Nonpartisan Judicial Merit Commission that would give the General Assembly a list of candidates for each judicial vacancy, as nominated by the public.
  • Nominees would be considered based on merit or legal qualifications, rather than partisan affiliation.
  • The General Assembly could change the size of the commission (up to nine members) and assign a certain number of commission appointments to itself, the state’s chief justice, and the governor. None of the three would be able to appoint a majority of the commission.
  • The General Assembly would consult the list and advance at least two nominees to the governor for approval.
  • The governor would have 10 days to select the “best qualified” replacement from the approved list of nominees, or the General Assembly would choose its own.
  • The chief justice would have the power to fill any vacancy if the seat was up for election within 60 days, or if the General Assembly had been adjourned for more than 30 days and the governor failed to pick a nominee.

Republicans noted that judges of the same political party of the governor in office have retired before facing re-election to allow the governor to appoint an ideological successor.

“This is a much superior to the current system,” Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, said. “It is something that represents a vast improvement to the way in which we fill vacancies in the present time.”

Sen. Terry Van Duyn, D-Buncombe, called the General Assembly’s proposal a “chokepoint” and compared it to the chamber’s stalling of the governor’s appointments to the board of elections.

“It is a different process, but is certainly not a nonpartisan process,” Van Duyn said.

Jon Guze, director of legal studies at the John Locke Foundation, said political preference may continue to play a role under the amended process, and suggested Republicans may regret their idea if the balance of power in the state flipped.

Still, Guze said he didn’t expect there to be any significant legal problems with the proposal.

“I don’t see any separation of powers issues with the proposed amendment,” Guze said. “The current system gives the executive a certain amount of power over the judicial branch, and the proposed amendment transfers some of that power to the legislative branch, but I don’t see any separation of powers problem with either approach.”

Edward Lopez, a professor at Western Carolina University who studies public choice, told CJ that the amendment would help balance government power, but said he supported further judicial reform.

“We should either have elections or not have elections,” Lopez stated. “If we’re going to have an appointment system, it should be not just in the case of vacancies between elections, but it should be for the selection of judges period.”

Lopez said that political pressure can cause problems for the justice system.

“As best as social scientists can tell, the performance of the judiciary is much better in nonelected situations,” Lopez said. “Even within elected systems, it’s much better in nonpartisan, compared to partisan, systems.”

S.B. 814 also goes to the House for consideration.