Let’s talks about some more of the Amendments on the
November 6th Ballot
By Ian Morris
Comment below, or reach attorney Morris directly ian.morris@bridgehouse.law,
or on Twitter @IMorrisOne.
If last week’s amendments enshrining victims’’ rights and a
right to hunt and fish were the bait; this week’s amendments are the hook. Amendments proposing to change
the way judicial vacancies are filled and change
the way members are appointed to the Bipartisan State Board of Ethics and
Elections Enforcement are political rifle shots aimed at limiting the powers of
the governor and empowering the legislature under the auspice of nonpartisan
collaboration.
For the most part I agree. The judicial appointment amendment asks
voters if they are for or against a –
Constitutional amendment to implement a nonpartisan
merit-based system that relies on professional qualifications instead of
political influence when nominating Justices and judges to be selected to fill
vacancies that occur between judicial elections.
This is the most controversial of all the proposed amendments
and has received predominantly negative coverage. Essentially the amendment would allow the
General Assembly to develop “merit commissions” at the state and local levels
(cash register sound) that would make recommendations to fill judicial
vacancies in a non-partisan way based on whether or not the replacements were
qualified or not. These two recommendations
would then go forward to be chosen by the governor. Should the governor refuse the choice, the
General Assembly will select by majority vote.
Facially this amendment isn’t too bad and to me it does
describe a fairly non-partisan way to select mid term replacements, but why is
it necessary? The constitution as intend
vests this power in the governor.
Proponents of this amendment argue that sometimes the appointment by a
sitting governor is political and while this may be true, I don’t think it
warrants changing the current balance of powers at the state level. I also accept that the amendment as written
seems fair but neither I nor anyone in Raleigh can be sure that this will
actually function as intended. Specifics
on what metrics this merit commission would use to judge judicial candidates
and how they themselves would remain apolitical, remain unclear.
Because it is a transparent and unnecessary limitation on
the governor, I will be voting no here.
Many consider our next amendment an equal attempt at
limiting the power of the state’s chief executive, as the General Assembly has
asked us to consider if we are for or against a -
Constitutional amendment to establish a bipartisan Board of
Ethics and Elections to administer ethics and election laws, to clarify the
appointment authority of the Legislative and the Judicial Branches, and to
prohibit legislators from serving on boards and commissions exercising
executive or judicial authority.
Full text here.
This is another one that is a seemingly fair way to handle
the issue but as above, the issue isn’t really bad enough to amend the constitution
and further limit the powers of the governor.
I am equally suspicious because this amendment would disenfranchise the
largest growing voter affiliation (unregistered) and nakedly benefit the
entrenched powers.
Currently issues revolving state officials and violations
relating to elections or ethics are investigated by a twelve-member commission
with each major party selecting six members, four of which are chosen by the
governor, who also selects an unaffiliated person to serve on the board. Ultimately the nine member board will have 4
members from each major party and a single member that is unaffiliated.
Yes, it is a little messy but I really hate two things about
this proposed amendment, it ends with an even number leaving a high potential
for partisan splits and worst of all, it further disenfranchises the
independent or unaffiliated voters by removing them from the process entirely. I am a solid no here as well.
