The State Seal of North Carolina contains the motto adopted in 1893 “esse quam videri” which is often translated as “to be rather than to seem.” This statement, is however, only part of a line taken from Cicero’s essay “On Friendship” or “No Judicial Performance Evaluation Results This Year, Again
In a statement from the President of the North Carolina Bar Association released today, January 12, 2010, it was announced that the results of the 2009 Judicial Performance Evaluation will again remain private to those judges who receive their “report cards.” All judges are urged to keep their results “in confidence.”
For full details, click here.
Some Clarification on Storch’s “Zero Contribution Campaign”
I’ve recently received feedback and comments from many respected members in the community casting doubts on the viability of my campaign. Traditional opinion is that a political campaign needs to raise as much money as possible in order to be successful. Therefore, since I am not raising or seeking external funding and have sworn to a threshold (<$3,000 in spending), I must not be serious about winning.
First and foremost, let it be clear that I am 100% earnest in winning this election and I am not simply trying to make a point by seeking out a minority “protest vote.”
My campaign has been in the works since the summer of 2008 and not accepting funding is more than something to set me apart from the other candidates but is the result of serious consideration and I have written several essays on this subject. (click here for link)
The values I hold most dearly and attribute to the independence of the judiciary dictate that I do not accept financial contributions from anyone who might appear in my courtroom. Given that more than 70% of judicial campaign funding comes from attorneys who regularly appear in any given judge’s courtroom, I have chosen to maintain my moral integrity by keeping the courtroom as neutral as possible with respect to any attorney that will appear before me.
This position is reinforced by the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Caperton v. Massey. (click for link to this article)
So how do I expect to get votes? I think bombarding the public with bulk mailings filled with political doublespeak and worn out euphemisms is an insult to the intelligent voters of Durham. Ironically, I am already receiving campaign literature from other District Court Judge candidates asking me to support their campaigns! This only goes to prove my point of the inefficiency of the traditional approach.
In contrast, I expect to earn the trust and confidence of voters by going to them directly. If you are a registered voter in Durham, expect me to come knocking on your door and introducing myself in person and addressing any questions and concerns you may have about our judicial system directly.
The bottom line is that a vote for Storch is not a “novelty vote” but a vote that represents more than the traditional approach to judicial campaigning. It represents a vote for a higher standard.
If voters feel compelled to believe that in order for a candidacy to be legitimate that campaign must raise money, I’ll offer a solution: Vote for Storch in the upcoming primary and then make out a check to any local charity. The Durham Rescue Mission; Urban Ministries, Reality Ministries; and the John Avery Boys and Girls Club are a few worthy local causes that come to mind. And in the memo section of the check, indicate that the donation is in honor of the Committee to Elect Storch.
Mailing addresses are:
Urban Ministries 412 Liberty StreetDurham, NC 27701-3408 Durham Rescue Mission P.O. Box 11858 Durham, NC 27703 Reality Ministries PO Box 242
Durham, NC 27702 John Avery Boys & Girls Clubs, Inc. PO Box 446 Durham, North Carolina 27701
Or any other local charity you wish to help out.
For further reading on the ethical perils of judicial campaign financing, read: Judicial Campaign Financing: An Ever Present Threat to Judicial Independence
The State Bar will not rate North Carolina’s Judges
On Dec 22, the North Carolina State Bar released a statement that it will not go ahead with initial plans to rate judges on a simple “qualified/unqualified” rating scale.
The Bar cites an insufficient number of responses to the survey taken during the summer of 2009. However, in an earlier public release, the Bar stated that 3,140 responses were received and never intimated that this was an insufficient data pool.
The most recent announcement also indicates that preliminary results were given to judges and requests that no one use those results in the upcoming election.
For the official announcement, click here.
Supreme Court Decides Caperton v. Massey
On June 9, 2009, the United State Supreme Court handed down a decision on Caperton v. Massey, a case involving a West Virginia Supreme Court Judge who refused to recuse himself despite receiving campaign donations from one of the parties appearing before him. With the exception of a few judicial websites, like the Brennan Center for Justice, commentary and discussion regarding the consequences of this ruling have been remiss.
What happened in Caperton v. Massey?
In Massey, an attorney, Brent Benjamin, was running for a Supreme Court Justice seat in West Virginia. Because contributions made to his campaign committee exceeded 3 million dollars, he was able to run an all-out mud slinging campaign against the then seated judge, Warren McGraw. What is important to note is that these contributions were made by the C.E.O. of A.T. Massey Coal Company.
A.T. Massey Coal Co. was subsequently involved in a law suit filed by Hugh Caperton, of Harman Mining. The jury found in favor of Caperton and awarded $50 million in damages.
The case was appealed and found itself in the West Virginia Supreme Court, before, guess who? Judge Benjamin. Of course, Caperton petitioned to have judge Benjamin recuse himself from the case, given the large contributions made by A.T. Massey’s C.E.O.. Benjamin declined and was ultimately part of the 3 to 2 majority that overturned the $50 million verdict.
Caperton appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy called the appearance of conflict of interest so “extreme” that Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself constituted a threat to the plaintiff’s Constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also noted that “Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s recusal, but this is an exceptional case. We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias—based on objective and reasonable perceptions—when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.”
“The inquiry,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “centers on the contribution’s relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.”
Applying that test, Justice Kennedy ruled for the Court that “Blankenship’s significant and disproportionate influence—coupled with the temporal relationship between the election and the pending case—”‘ “offer a possible temptation to the average . . . judge to . . . lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.”‘ “On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level.”
What are the Implications of this Ruling?
Some states are instituting limitations on local judges, e.g., District Court Judges, requiring them to recuse themselves from hearing any case where either party has contributed more than a specified threshold amount to that judge’s campaign. Texas, for example, has set that amount to $1,000.00 for smaller districts and $2,500 for larger ones.
Other states have introduced legislation to prevent candidates for District Court Judge from accepting any monetary donations by changing the process from an electoral one to one by appointment.
Implications for Durham
District Court campaigns in Durham have historically spent tens of thousands of dollars, with some recent campaigns reaching more than thirty thousand dollars. This is a relatively small amount compared to the millions that are raised for statewide positions. But by comparison, contributions made by some local attorneys reach significant percentage of the total campaign budget. For example, in one recent campaign, the judicial candidate raised approximately ten thousand dollars. One local attorney contributed $750 to that campaign, which amounts to a substantial 7.5% contribution.
It is hard to believe that the judicial candidate won’t remember that significant contribution when that attorney appears in that judge’s courtroom after the election.
I have promised to not accept campaign contributions from anyone for exactly the reasons brought to light by Caperton v. Massey. This is the policy I have adopted at the outset of my campaign back in 2008, long before the ruling of the Supreme Court. Not because it merely avoids the appearance of impropriety but because it is the morally correct thing to do and the only way to preserve judicial fairness, integrity, and objectivity.
And I challenge my opposition to do the same.
Want to know where my opposition’s money is coming from? Click here (coming in February)
Storch is sworn in as a Magistrate in Durham County
Tuesday, November 17, 2009. It was a nondescript ceremony conducted in the Chief District Court Judge’s chambers. Left hand on the bible, right hand raised, and an affirmation of the Magistrate’s Oath of Office. But it was a monumental day in the life of this attorney as it was an opportunity to serve the public and the criminal justice system in Durham County in a new capacity as an impartial officer of the court.
What exactly does a Magistrate do? The Magistrate is a judicial official of the District Court Division. In criminal cases, magistrates issue search warrants, arrest warrants, and conduct initial appearances. They also determine conditions of pretrial release and set initial bond amounts when appropriate.
In civil cases, they preside over small claims court and they also perform civil marriage ceremonies.
For more information about the duties and responsibilities of a Magistrate, click here:
About the Author: Steven Storch is a former Assistant District Attorney in Durham County, North Carolina and is currently serving the citizens of Durham County as a Magistrate. Dr. Storch is
the sole designer, author, and webmaster of this web site. Any and all credit or blame for its content should be attributed to him.