State Government

Will Public Campaign Financing Change Appellate Court Elections?

By Steve Tuttle

Beginning in 2004, candidates for the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court won’t run as Democrats or Republicans, and they will be able to receive six-figure sums from the taxpayers to pay for their campaigns. The landmark legislation adopted by the General Assembly in the final days of the short session completes a move begun a few years ago to take politics out of North Carolina’s judiciary and makes the state a national leader in the field.

While many groups, including NCCBI, support the move toward nonpartisan judicial elections, some Republicans resisted the effort to take politics out of appellate court races because they believe it will undermine the party’s recent successes in those elections. Of the seven members of the state Supreme Court, five now are Republicans.

In addition to specifying that candidates not identify themselves by party, the new law, S. 1054 Judicial Campaign Reform Act, created the North Carolina Public Campaign Financing Fund that will receive $3 from each taxpayer who checks a box on their state income tax return. Estimates by the General Assembly’s Fiscal Research Division are that the fund would have $680,000 to distribute to candidates for the 2004 election and $1.9 million for the 2006 elections, including money from $50 voluntary contributions from lawyers when they renew their privilege licenses.

Candidates for the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court would have to agree to several limitations to quality for public financing, however. Significantly, they couldn’t accept any contribution larger than $1,000, or $2,000 from a family member. To trigger access to the fund, candidates first would first have to raise money from at least 350 supporters totaling no more than $69,000. Court of Appeals candidates who abide by the restrictions would then qualify to receive public financing equal to 125 percent of the salary for the office, or $138,200. Supreme Court candidates would receive 175 percent of the salary for the office, or $201,800. Candidates would not be required to use public financing and would be free to raise as much as they could from supporters. In those cases, their opponents could get as much as $600,000 in public money from a “rescue fund.”

As part of its “good government” positions, NCCBI has supported efforts to remove politics from judicial elections but has opposed using taxpayer money to fund campaigns. NCCBI’s preference is for gubernatorial appointment of appellate judges, with voter retention elections.

Sales Tax Going Up: Bowing to heavy pressure from mayors and county commissioners who jammed the Legislative Building, the House and Senate agreed to allow counties to raise the local option sales tax by a half-cent starting Dec. 1, six months earlier than planned. The votes in both chambers were largely along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

If all 100 counties institute the extra half-cent levy, which is expected and which county commissioners can do without a vote of the people, the tax should raise more than half of the $330 million in local government reimbursements Gov. Mike Easley impounded to help solve the state’s budget crisis. The Dec. 1 date for implementing the local option sales tax is notable in that it falls after the November general election and before the Christmas shopping season.

The combined state and local sales tax rate, now 6.5 percent in most counties (4.5 percent state, 2 percent local) will rise to 7 percent in counties that choose the half-cent local option but is scheduled to fall back to 6.5 percent on July 1 when a half-cent of the state’s share will expire. Under legislation passed last year to help close a yawning budget gap, the half-cent local option sales tax was to begin simultaneously with the end of the half-cent state tax.

However, some now are questioning whether the state will stick by its plan to allow its half-cent to expire on July 1. With the current budget propped up by more than $800 million in non-recurring revenue and other gimmicks, many are wondering whether the state can afford to give up the $363 million in revenue that the extra half-cent raises.

Toll Roads Coming: Toll roads legislation, which recently appeared to be out of gas in the General Assembly, suddenly sped ahead in the final weeks of the General Assembly session after House and Senate conferees compromised on exactly many such roads can be build. The final version of the toll roads legislation specifies that the new Toll Road Bridge Authority may proceed with plans to build three toll roads and begin studying locations for three more.

The compromise also specifies that one of three toll roads that can be immediately considered must go in an area with a population of more than 650,000. Another must go in an area with a population of less than 650,000, which sponsors said probably would be a road linking Union and Mecklenburg counties. The third road could go anywhere in the state. Additionally, the N.C. Turnpike Authority can begin the planning process for three additional roads but must obtain legislative approval before beginning actual construction on them.

A new commuter route linking Gaston and Mecklenburg counties is expected to be the state’s first toll road. The proposed Garden Parkway, so called because it would run adjacent to the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden, would cost an estimated $300 million to build.

The authority will be governed by a nine-member board, with five appointed by the governor and two each by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate. The turnpike authority has the power to condemn land and issue bonds, with toll revenue paying off the bonds. The legislation says that tolls would end once the bonds are retired and a maintenance fund was established for the road.

Return to magazine index