Locke Foundation, Gov. McCrory in lock-step?

It seems the John Locke Foundation might have the inside track on policy moves to come from the N.C.governor's office now that Republican Pat McCrory is at the helm.

How else to explain the "coincidence" of McCrory's first executive order restoring the governor's sole authority to fill vacant judgeships on the same day Locke Foundation head John Hood publishes a column entitled "Reform Judicial Elections."

The column ends with an imperative for lawmakers to either "repeal the government-funding system entirely and restore party labels to our statewide judicial races" or "submit a constitutional amendment to voter referendum that emulates the federal model by having governors appoint the judges, subject to legislative confirmation and perhaps a subsequent retention election by voters."

The coincidence isn't all that surprising. The Locke Foundation has been funded primarily by Art Pope, the conservative philanthropist and activist who McCrory tapped to be his budget guru. Pope long controlled the foundation's agenda. Now, is he getting to make that agenda the state's and the governor's too? We're just asking.

McCrory signed a repeal of an order from Democratic predecessor Bev Perdue in 2011 creating a
state commission to nominate new judges. Perdue's goal was to remove politics from the process by selecting appeals and superior court judges from candidates nominated by the non-partisan commission.

McCrory said he was also concerned about the potential for politics to influence judicial appointments, but he says Perdue's order simply didn't work.

Perdue of course subverted her own strategy by failing to get a panel up and running, and at the end of her term bypassing the process to appoint her own choices to have them in place before McCrory took office -a move that brought her deserved criticism for hypocrisy.

The Observer editorial board has advocated for judicial appointments using a bipartisan panel to recommend nominees to the governor, followed by retention elections in which the citizens have a say in whether a judge stays on. So we agree with parts of the Locke Foundation suggestions. But we contend that the bipartisan, merit selections panel and the retention elections are key components, not options.

Hood's urging that lawmakers abandon public financing for judicial elections raises more concerns.  The state saw clearly the impact of monied interests on judgeship races last year in the N.C. Supreme Court race where nearly $2 million was spent. The race was targeted for big money because the outcome dictated the balance on the court - 4-3 right leaning or 4-3 left leaning. And because controversial laws the Republican-led legislature passed over the last couple of years could wind up before the high court, the balance could matter. Hood argues the current system attracts super PACs - such as the ones that got involved in ad buys in the state high court race - and other independent expenditure groups because public financing rules restrict candidates from running "real campaigns" and appealing to partisan voters with their political affiliation. But it's a stretch to think that by relinquishing the one restraining influence on special interests - public financing - that those monied interests would have less influence not more.

But the campaign to end public financing is clearly under way. Where does McCrory stand? Maybe John Hood and the Locke Foundation are giving us a clue.


Posted by Fannie Flono