RALEIGH – As I have observed before, North Carolina currently has the worst of both worlds when it comes to selecting our appellate judges.

Thanks to a “reform” of judicial elections enacted by the General Assembly, we now have a coercive, inadequately funded system of public financing. While moving this bill through, the Democratic majority also saw fit to remove party labels from judicial candidates – an unambiguously partisan move, motivated by their frustration at a growing voter preference for Republican candidates for judicial office. Their handiwork didn’t actually abolish partisan competition in these races, by the way. These are still partisan races, and I have the campaign pieces from each side to prove it. All that changed is that voters have no handy means at the polling place to identify the Ds and Rs, other than perhaps endorsement sheets previously received and brought in.

I am sympathetic to the notion that we should abolish multi-candidate elections for state appellate judges altogether. Some form of formal executive-branch appointment, perhaps combined with a subsequent retention election, would be fine with me. In operational terms, such a path to the judiciary wouldn’t be all that different from the current system, in which many appellate judges are first appointed by a governor to fill a vacancy, but at least we wouldn’t be asking judges to campaign as if they were seeking a legislative or executive post.

As long as we retain rivalrous judicial elections, however, they should be real elections. We should allow the campaigns to raise sufficient funds from donors to communicate with millions of potential North Carolina voters. We should not compel attorneys or taxpayers to finance the campaigns of candidates with whom they may strenuously disagree. And we should allow judicial candidates to report their party affiliation on the ballot. That at least offers some useful information to voters, who are otherwise left with such weighty legal matters as whether they feel a vague sense of familiarity upon reading a judicial candidate’s name – particularly if it resembles an entertainment or sports celebrity.

In the meantime, Carolina Journal will remedy any information deficit for our readers. On Election Day, voters will select four justices of the North Carolina Supreme Court and two judges for the Court of Appeals. Here are the races, party affiliations of the candidates, and links to campaign sites for more information:

Chief Justice: Rusty Duke [R] vs. incumbent Sarah Parker [D].

Associate Justice: Rachel Lea Hunter [D] vs. incumbent Mark Martin [R, but endorsed by many Democratic leaders, as well, including the head of the N.C. Democratic Party, for obvious reasons].

Associate Justice: incumbent Patricia Timmons-Goodson [D] vs. Eric Levinson [R].

Associate Justice: Ann Marie Calabria [R] vs. Robin Hudson [D].

Court of Appeals: Kris Bailey [R] vs. incumbent Bob Hunter [D].

Court of Appeals: incumbent Linda Stephens [D] vs. Donna Stroud [R].

You can also read more about the candidates, including their backgrounds and statements of judicial philosophy, by visiting the North Carolina State Board of Elections website and downloading the Judicial Voter Guide as a pdf. Join the thousands of North Carolina voters who will cast a careful, informed vote on Election Day for these critical judicial offices.

Unfortunately, it won’t be millions.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.