Retention vote: Let electorate weigh in on whether justices should face opposition

In a recent editorial we decried the political atmosphere that has become the dominant factor in the election of many judges in this state.

But a new law that gives members of the state Supreme Court the opportunity to retain their seat without facing an opponent doesn't strike us as the way to handle the problem.

Proponents of the new law say it is

intended to cut down on the impact of money in Supreme Court races -- something we agree with.

But not allowing a challenger to enter a race doesn't sit well with us. It just seems downright un-American not to open up a seat to challengers, whether it is on the state's highest court or a local school board.

Judges at all other levels continue to face opposition to get re-elected.

A lawsuit filed in Wake County claims that a retention election is not truly an election but merely a referendum that violate the state Constitution's requirement that justices must be elected by the voters. The new

law, the opponents say, also places a new, unlawful requirement to running for the

court -- that one has to be an incumbent to

be on the ballot.

The lawsuit asks that voters be asked to change the state Constitution to reflect the change, if that is going to become the way we select members of the state's highest court.

We think that is a good idea. Let the voters decide if they want to allow a member of

the Supreme Court the opportunity to bypass facing a challenger and simply ask voters whether to let them to keep the seat for another eight years.

If it is a good idea, then let it be carved into the state Constitution.

Published in Editorials on December 2, 2015 11:50 AM