Archive for the 'Courts' Category

There’s no perfect way to select judges

October 28th, 2011, 5:11 pm by Barry Smith

I remember a decade ago thinking that the move to electing appellate court judges in North Carolina on a nonpartisan basis was a good idea. After all, should the political affiliation of a particular justice on the N.C. Supreme Court or a judge on the N.C. Court of Appeals matter when it comes to deciding the constitutionality or application of a particular law?

What I’ve learned in the last decade is that changing the partisanship status of judicial candidates on the ballot hasn’t really changed things that much.

Partisanship wasn’t really all that high when we did decide appellate judges on a partisan basis. And it’s not all that partisan now.

The cases that do stir up partisanship are usually political in nature, such as redistricting issues.

When redistricting cases were ruled on by the N.C. Supreme Court before nonpartisan elections were initiated, partisanship was evident. The same holds true in the years after we instituted nonpartisan elections.

Republicans on the court ruled one way. Democrats ruled the other way.

The other day, Jim Drennan of the UNC School of Government gave a legislative committee considering changes to the judicial selection process an overview of the various ways judges are selected in the United States.

Drennan concluded that there isn’t a perfect system of selecting judges.

Said Drennan: “Every system has its advantages. And every system has its disadvantages. And trying to find that balance makes it really hard.”

Posted in: Courts • Elections • General Assembly • Politics • State government | Post a Comment »

Legislative leaders ask Judge Manning to clarify pre-K ruling

August 15th, 2011, 4:07 pm by Barry Smith

Speaker Thom Tillis

President Pro-tem Phil Berger

House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, and Senate President Pro-tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, are asking Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning to clarify a recent order regarding the state’s pre-kindergarten program previously known as More at Four.

Last month, Manning ruled that the state cannot limit at-risk children’s enrollment in the pre-kindergarten program. Last week, Gov. Bev Perdue ordered the program to accept all eligible 4-year-olds without easing previous academic standards.

The two GOP leaders say they’ve urged Perdue to seek clarification in Manning’s ruling, but she hasn’t. They say that instead she has mandated the state create a “massive, multi-million-dollar entitlement anyway – a blatantly unconstitutional move.”

The leaders say that Perdue is picking a political fight.

Posted in: Bev Perdue • Budget • Courts • General Assembly • Government spending • State government | 1 Comment »

Perdue won’t sign, nor veto school testing bill

March 18th, 2011, 3:26 pm by Barry Smith

Gov. Bev Perdue won’t sign a bill that cuts back on the number of standardized tests given in the public school system. But she won’t veto it either.

The bill would eliminate four end-of-course tests – U.S. History, Civics and Economics, Algebra II, and Physical Science – and specifies that the State Board of Education shall not require statewide standardized testing unless it is required by federal law or is a condition of obtaining a federal grant.

The bill passed by wide, bipartisan margins in both the House and the Senate.

Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning, who has overseen enforcement of a landmark public school lawsuit that declared that North Carolina students have the right to a “sound, basic education,” has written a memo saying that preserving the testing was necessary to monitor student performance.

Here is Perdue’s statement on the law:

“Personally, I believe the tests now used in school systems are due for change. I’ve talked to many teachers, and heard from education leaders across the state. It’s clear that current testing does not accomplish our shared goal of excellent teachers in every classroom and the best schools for our children in every community.

But let me be very clear – I do not support simply eliminating testing. This state must have some process in place for identifying areas in need of improvement.

For those reasons, I will not sign this bill, nor will I veto it. Instead, I urge the General Assembly to work aggressively and deliberately with the State Board of Education to develop a new method of holding schools accountable to the people. This is the only way to ensure we meet the state’s Constitutional obligation of a sound, basic education for our children.”

Posted in: Bev Perdue • Courts • Education • Federal government • General Assembly • State government | Post a Comment »

A look back at predictions I made about 2010

December 30th, 2010, 1:11 pm by Barry Smith

As I take a break from my year-end vacation to blog a little, I think back to a lot of the changes that occurred during 2010.

There are the political changes that occurred, both in North Carolina and across the United States.

There were a lot of changes that took place for me too. For a little bit more than the first half of the year, I spent my working hours doing pretty much what I’d been doing for the past dozen years, covering state government and political news from the state capital. Then, as the end of July approached, it became my job to publish a new political website, M2Mpolitics.com.

This was a challenging role for me, one that caused me to get out of my comfort zone.

One tradition I hope to keep going, however, is taking a look at what I see in store for the new year. And, correspondingly, as it becomes time to change the calendar, look back at the previous year and grade myself.

Today, I’ll review how well I did during my predictions for 2010.

1. I said Republicans would take the U.S. House. I was right. Credit me with 10 points.

2. I predicted that Democrats would retain a majority in the U.S. Senate, though Republicans would make gains. At the first of the year, this was a no-brainer. The fact that during the political season pundits were even talking about the possibility of a GOP takeover was mind-boggling. I get another 10 points.

3. I said that U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., would go back to Washington, but only after winning the political fight of his life. Yes, he won, but no, it wasn’t as big of a fight as I thought it’d be. I’m a tough grader, so I won’t even give myself half credit here.

4. I correctly predicted that voters would give Republicans a majority in the N.C. Senate. Give me another 10 points.

5. I incorrectly predicted that Democrats would maintain a majority in the N.C. House and that Speaker Joe Hackney, D-Orange, would be poised to lead a Democratic majority. Hackney will lead Democrats, but he’ll be their minority leader.

6. I predicted that Congress would deliver President Obama a political victory by passing a health insurance bill. Congress did. I’ll take that 10 points.

7. I correctly predicted that Congress would fail in its attempt to pass sweeping immigration reform. This is beginning to sound like a broken record, and will probably be a safe bet next year. I’ll accept the 10 points for this one.

8. I’ll also take 10 points for correctly predicting that Gov. Bev Perdue would convince N.C. Supreme Court justices to keep life-termers behind bars.

9. I was wrong on my March Madness prediction, which included a remark that no North Carolina team would make the Final Four.

10. And my biggest prediction that went awry had to do with the Carolina Panthers. I said they’d rebound and make the playoffs. Ha! Their season was disastrous.

If my math is correct, I get 60 points out of a possible 100. I did better, much better, on my political predictions than I did on my sports predictions. Maybe I should stick to politics.

Posted in: 2010 U.S. Senate Race • Barack Obama • Bev Perdue • Courts • Crime • Elections • Federal government • General Assembly • Health • Immigration • Politics • Richard Burr • Sports • State government | Post a Comment »

Easley’s fine seems a bit dissatisfying

November 24th, 2010, 3:31 pm by Barry Smith

Most everybody, including myself, has something to say about former Gov. Mike Easley’s plea deal Tuesday. Easley, of course, took an Alford plea bargain, pleading guilty to one count of filing a false campaign finance report. For the felony charge, he got a $1,000 fine.

An Alford plea allows a defendant to plead guilty to a crime without having to admit guilt. Instead, the defendant admits that the prosecution has sufficient evidence to convict him.

News & Observer columnist Rob Christensen noted the irony of seeing Easley, who made his name as first a district attorney and then as an attorney general, sitting at the defendant’s table in a courtroom.

“How had Easley made the journey from the prosecutor’s table to the defense table – from Mr. Clean to felon?” Christensen asks. He goes on to note that it’s apparent that Easley has not come to grips with what has happened.

Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina, found the punishment unsettling. “The puny punishment is neither a deterrent for the future nor an honest portrayal of the wrongdoing that happened,” Hall wrote.

Hall finds only one bright spot in the ordeal, Easley telling the judge, “I have to take responsibility for what the campaign does. The buck has to stop somewhere. It stops with me.”

Hall goes on to say that Easley should accept responsibility for paying the remaining $94,000 of the $100,000 fine that the State Board of Elections levied on Easley’s campaign committee last year. The committee paid only $6,000 and has a zero balance after paying attorney fees, Hall notes.

Posted in: Campaign Finance • Courts • Crime • Elections • Government Corruption • Mike Easley • Politics • State government | Post a Comment »

Instant runoff voting: It’s as easy as one, two three

September 1st, 2010, 10:29 am by Barry Smith

Instant Runoff is coming to a ballot near you.

While the procedure has been used in a handful of municipal elections in the state, it’s new to most folks. It will be used in one Court of Appeals election this year.

Don’t fret. It’s as easy as one, two, three. You’ll simply vote for your first choice, your second choice and then your third choice.

It’s that simple.

This year, the recent vacancy created when Judge Jim Wynn on the N.C. Court of Appeals resigned to take a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals generated a lot of interest. A baker’s dozen candidates filed for the seat, creating the possibility that the leading candidate would get only a small fraction of the vote.

Here’s what voters need to know when they vote for candidates in this race.

The race for this seat will be the last race on the ballot, said Johnnie McLean, state deputy director of elections. It will have separate instructions. In counties where touch-screen voting machines are used, a separate, optical-scanner paper ballot will be provided for this race.

The names of the 13 candidates will appear, and there will be three columns for you to mark your first choice, second choice and third choice. There’s no need for voters to vote for the same person more than one time. If a voter does do so, only the initial choice will be counted.

Initially, only the first-choice votes will be counted. If one of the candidates receives a majority of the votes cast (50 percent plus one vote), that candidate will be declared the winner and no more counting will be necessary.

If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, then the Instant Runoff rules kick in. The two top candidates will enter the instant runoff. All of their first choice votes will still count for them in the instant runoff.

For voters who didn’t mark either of these two candidates as their first choice, elections officials would count their second-choice selections for one of the two candidates. If they didn’t vote for either of the two top candidates as their second choice, then elections officials would proceed to count the voter’s third choice for one of the top two candidates.

The ballots that did not contain a first, second or third choice for one of the first two vote-getters would not be counted in the final Instant Runoff count.

The candidate with the highest number of votes in the final count would win the election.

The voting change could have an effect on how candidates campaign. Candidates are used to asking for your vote. Now, they’ll start asking you to vote for them with a caveat: “If I’m not your first choice, at least make me your second or third choice.”

The following have filed for the Court of Appeals seat: John F. Bloss, Jewel Ann Farlow and Stan Hammer, all of Greensboro; J. Wesley Casteen of Wilmington; Chris Dillon, Anne Middleton, Harry E. Payne Jr., John Sullivan, Cressie Thigpen and Pamela M. Vesper, all of Raleigh; Daniel E. Garner of Wake Forest; Mark E. Klass of Lexington; and Doug McCullough of Atlantic Beach.

Posted in: Courts • Elections • Politics | 2 Comments »

Wynn promotion creates vacancy, election for N.C. appeals court

August 11th, 2010, 11:08 am by Barry Smith

N.C. Court of Appeals Judge James Wynn just got a big promotion. And that promotion will clear the way for another office on the ballot in the November election.

Wynn was appointed by President Obama to the federal 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals. He got bipartisan support in the Senate, including support from both of North Carolina’s two senators, Kay Hagan and Richard Burr.

His subsequent resignation from the N.C. Court of Appeals creates a vacancy on North Carolina’s second highest court. The N.C. Constitution requires that vacancies on the court be filled by the governor and that the appointee face election the next time there is an election for members of the General Assembly. That’s Nov. 2 folks.

Had the vacancy occurred later in the year, within 60 days of the general election, the balloting for the appeals court judge would have taken place in November 2012.

That race already has a candidate. Robert Christopher “Chris” Dillon, a 45-year-old Raleigh Attorney, has announced his intent to run for the office. A release sent out by Dillon notes that he has practiced civil and criminal law at both the trial court and appellate court levels. For the past four years he has been senior vice president of CapStone Bank.

Posted in: Barack Obama • Courts • Elections • Federal government • Kay Hagan • Politics • Richard Burr | Post a Comment »

Do we have an expectation of privacy with our cell phones?

February 11th, 2010, 4:22 pm by Barry Smith

I had qualms a few years ago when it came out that the Bush administration was listening in on conversations between people believed connected to terrorism overseas and people in the United States without securing a warrant.

Yes, I wanted the federal government tracking down terrorists. Our Constitution provides for a method for the government to listen in on calls from suspected terrorists. It’s called getting a warrant. All the feds have to do is convince a judge that they have probable cause.

Now comes the Obama administration wanting to look at cell phone records that can easily pinpoint the location of a caller. The federal government wants to do this, again without a warrant. The administration argues that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” as to their whereabouts, or at least their cell phones’ whereabouts, according to an article by Declan McCullagh on cnet.com.

Because of “enhanced 911” requirements for cell phones, along with GPS functions on the phones, tracking where you are when you make a call is easier than ever. So the feds may want to find out where a bank robber is placing a call from, or where a drug dealer is hanging out. That’s made easier by the new technology.

Again, I have no problem with the government tracking down a bank robber who is planning his next heist. I just think that the feds should get a warrant. Without the warrant requirement, the potential for abuse is rampant.

The case comes up before a federal appeals court on Friday.

Posted in: Barack Obama • Courts • Crime • Federal government • Terrorism | Post a Comment »

Another twist in the legal wrangling over life-termers

December 18th, 2009, 5:12 pm by Barry Smith

Today was a good day for Gov. Bev Perdue and state attorneys trying to keep life-termers from being released from prison. Cleveland County Superior Court Judge J. Gentry Caudill denied a motion to release one prisoner, Wilbur William Folston Jr., and the governor’s office says an order from the N.C. Supreme Court temporarily blocking the release of two other prisoners is expected momentarily.

Folston is serving a life sentence for killing a service station attendant near Morganton in the mid 1970s.

Earlier in the week, the N.C. Court of Appeals had temporarily blocked the release of Alford Jones and Faye Brown. The appeals court later dissolved that order, which would have allowed the two killers to go free late Friday without intervention by the N.C. Supreme Court.

Jones was convicted during the mid-1970s for killing a man during a robbery in Lenoir County. Brown was convicted of murder in the 1970s following a bank robbery in which a trooper was shot to death.

The Associated Press is reporting that the N.C. Supreme Court has indeed temporarily blocked the release of Jones and Brown.

Posted in: Bev Perdue • Courts • State government | Post a Comment »

Time running out to keep life-termers behind bars

December 17th, 2009, 5:31 pm by Barry Smith

Time could be running out for Gov. Bev Perdue and state attorneys to keep two convicted murderers behind bars. According to an Associated Press story, the N.C Court of Appeals has denied the state’s attempt to release the two prisoners.

The appeals court, earlier this week, temporarily blocked the release of Alford Jones and Faye Brown.