Republicans hold a slim 4-3 majority on North Carolina’s Supreme Court, where justices are chosen in nonpartisan elections against another candidate for an eight-year term. To protect that majority in 2016, state Republicans passed a law in 2015 to allow incumbents seeking reelection to switch to a retention election where they would simply face a yes or no vote, a process that is far friendlier to incumbents than a head-to-head election.
Electing judges is awful for good governance and retention elections can help reduce partisan influence over the judicial selection process. However, after spending millions on the last several races, including a high-profile effort in 2014 that narrowly failed to flip all three remaining Democratic seats, Republicans’ bid to change to judicial retention elections solely for the state Supreme Court reeks of hypocrisy and partisanship. Fortunately for Democrats, a district court panel recently struck down this law for violating the state constitution, which would have required a voter-approved amendment rather than merely a statute to institute retention elections.
Republican Justice Bob Edmunds, who is up for reelection this year and was at the center of this controversy, recently recused himself from hearing the appeal. That practically ensures that the state Supreme Court will deadlock 3-3 and the lower court ruling will stand, meaning Edmunds will likely face a Democratic opponent in November when he seeks a third term. Incumbent judges can be difficult to beat, but Edmunds only narrowly survived by a two-point margin in 2008. He will be quite vulnerable in 2016, especially if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz leads the Republican ticket and Hillary Clinton wins North Carolina. If Democrats defeat him, they will likely hold a 4-3 majority until at least 2023.
So what does this have to do with redistricting?