Tar Heel voters will go to the polls in less than a week to decide a range of federal, state, and local elections, but a new report from The Federalist Society spotlights one race that isn’t getting many headlines — associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court.
One seat on the seven-member high court is up for grabs this year, and the outcome of the race could be a tipping point for the court’s ideological divide. The contest pits current associate justice Bob Edmunds against Suzanne Reynolds, a law professor at Wake Forest University School of Law in Winston-Salem.
“Whatever one’s political or jurisprudential leanings, the 2008 election comes at a critical juncture for our state supreme court,” write Scott Gaylord, an Elon University law professor, and Joshua Davey, a Charlotte attorney, in the report released this month.
Since 2002, judicial races in North Carolina have been nonpartisan, meaning candidates’ party affiliations are not listed on the ballot. Some judicial candidates still associate with a political party, however, and Republicans are generally recognized as having a 4-3 majority on the court. This election cycle could shift that balance.
Reynolds is a registered Democrat, and liberal groups, such as the North Carolina Association of Educators and state chapter of the National Organization for Women, have endorsed her. Edmunds, a registered Republican, has received the endorsements of federal and state GOP lawmakers.
Polls suggest that many voters are still undecided about the candidates. A Civitas Institute survey in August that did not identify either candidate with a political party gave Reynolds a 2 percent edge over Edmunds, with 74 percent of voters undecided. Another Civitas poll, this one identifying the candidates’ party allegiances, showed Reynolds with 36 percent of the vote, Edmunds with 33 percent, and 31 percent undecided.
Dr. Andrew Taylor, a political science professor at North Carolina State University, said that some pundits believe that nonpartisan judicial races hurt the GOP more than the Democrats since voters tend to think of Republican candidates as being tougher on crime.
“In this race, Reynolds may be particularly advantaged because for many people the only cue will be name,” Taylor said. “This is because if people do vote along the lines of gender, it’s generally in favor of the woman.”
To highlight the importance of this year’s race on the makeup of the high court, The Federalist Society report discusses past state supreme court rulings that have impacted North Carolinians’ rights in areas like religious freedom, redistricting, workers’ compensation, and contractual law.
Gaylord and Davey also argue that citizens who participate in judicial elections serve as a check on activist judges.
“[If] a North Carolina justice fails to exercise self-restraint or otherwise fulfill her judicial function, the voters of North Carolina can vote the justice out of office and elect someone who more accurately reflects their judicial philosophy,” the authors write. “As a result, the voters of North Carolina play a central role in our system of checks and balances — determining who should serve (and for how long) in each of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.”
David N. Bass is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.