Show us you're smart

Will - thanks for the time and effort you put in on this issue.

I think that newspaper endorsements carry far more weight on referendums than on individual candidates. The fact that the Independent, the CH News, and the Herald all endorsed this measure probably paved the way. Had just one paper taken a more thorough & critical look, it may have raised sufficient awareness of the inherent mediocrity of the "reform".

Gee, running for office and actually really wanting to win. Shame on Adam Stein. That said, one point I haven't seen raised here is the distinct possibility we'll have a conservative Republican governor (after all, Easley might as well be a Republican) by the time Stein would have to resign. That governor would get to fill the vacancy. In my mind, THAT is the reason that Stein's candidacy should be questioned by those concerned with the politicization of the judicial ranks. Arguments that minimize his fine credentials are really grasping at straws.

Oy already, indeed. I guess it matters what's important to you.

Oy, indeed. Plus the weather's gonna be junky tomorrow. I predict a very close margin on the Orange redistricting referendum, which might bring more voters out on a rainy day than we normally see.

Oy already, get a room you two!

And for judges, what exactly does "transparency in the governance process" mean?

Most likely only very invovled voters are going to vote in this one
Because of that I predict
Gordon,Jacobs..Nelson 3rd with a surprisingly low % of Carrboro votes
Anderson and Baddour..because they both have a lot of supporters who will only vote for them becuase they think Carl does not need their vote to win they will try to give their favorite a boost.People like Carl but few feel very strongly about him and so will vote only for their first pick and assume that Carl has enough votes to win,they will be wrong.Too many informed voters are concerned about Adam's age,which is a shame
JAcquie

If there's any inference to be made, it is that a candidate's attitude about greater transparency in the campaign process might be reflective of a candidate's attitude about transparency in the governance process.

I agree.

Please forgive my typo in the above post.

It is http:www.northcarolinarepublicans.org (not .com)

Republcan Commando

It's sad to think that you believe that candidates following a law on campaign finance reports is like upholding a law that required the segregation of the races. Like what the folks in Montgomery so bravely did, change the law if you don't like it, but stop the innuendos about those who didn't comply with your “public call.”

Well, local politics in this area are mostly democrat cantidates (many of whom are fine, competent men and women) and as some know, we are endorsing Lewis Cheek in the DA race over a "wannabe" who happens to be "republican".

I personally think Mr. Fox is a good man with a good history and Durham's current sheriff is an excellent man for the job.

It is hard to know what will happen on the national scale, though. I'll have to vote national security there.

Some recent events like John Kerry (video available at http://www.northcarolinarepublicans.org ) showing democrat contempt for our military and the Islam video (also available at the same site and much more important) may have some effect.

It has not been that long that Chapel Hill was the victim of the Islamic war on the US. Had the man been competent it would have been a much worse thing. For so many years I had a rose colored view of CH and Carboro that there could never be violence there.....

Anyway, everyone should check out that Obession video and see how it affects your politics.

Republican Commando
http://www.northcarolinarepublicans.com

Will, please! Don't play that card on me; it's offensive.

Your answer Will, indicates that you don't understand the question. If the State mandates a specific date and Will Raymond wants an earlier date, why should candidates go with your date? You say it's doing the right thing, but doing the right thing is to comply with the law. You, and others, think that it would be better to provide information earlier than the law requires. I hope that you can see the difference. I think that the candidates did.

Bob Orr is a terrific judge and public servant

WillR writes:
"Fox's 3rd quarter report [PDF] was available by Friday. Soon enough for weekend perusal but late enough to miss the news cycle if anything untoward had popped up."

If it was hand delivered on Oct. 30 and not scanned until Nov. 3, who's responsible for that? Once again, the goal should be to have critical info out there before the first person can vote. That means the State must revise the deadlines.

Why do you think these candidates would make job of responding to the legal deadlines harder by responding to your "public call?" What's the incentive, knowing that the great majority won't even bother to vote, let alone care where the campaign money came from?

PS: Heard from Bob Orr AND Bill Clinton this morning. Orr wanted me to vote for Baddour and Clinton wanted me to vote the Democratic straight ticket and for the Democrats running for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

Surely one of you smart folks knows what time the polls are open tomorrow. I looked at the Orange County Board of Elections website, but if this information is there, it's buried where my poor eyes can't see it.

Twelve grand on robo-calls, huh? That seems wasteful, seeing as how easy it is to hang up on them. Much more wasteful, however, is the amount of heavy shiny paper mailed out by the Stein campaign.

The only thing I know for sure about Adam Stein is that he wants to win badly enough to create a recycling hassle.

Andrea, to listen to folks they find the calls: irritating, not informative (too short or sound-bitey), irritating ;-), etc.

Several states have banned automated calling - Indiana, I think South Dakota, a few more - and have so far been supported in their ban because other avenues for unsolicited speech ("ads") exist.

During my run I got solicitations from companies doing robo-calls for between $0.10 to $0.27 a call depending on the target demographic (the more targeted, the more expensive). Of course, these guys claimed it was quite effective ;-).

Here, I think, the cost makes them appear attractive - the cheapest mailings, even in the thousands, cost 4-5 times as much. Given the possibility of cheesing off a potential voter, it seems kind of reckless. Maybe candidates feel that the irritation is forgotten before the name recognition - that lingering traces of "I've heard of that person before..." will not be associated with the "where I heard them..."

I've read various research that kind of backs that theory (I'll look it up after I mow the lawn).

The only candidate I've discussed this with this year was Judge Anderson. He said that folks had suggested using a $0.06 a call service that hangs up if a human answers but, on principle alone, he rejected this approach. Good for him.

The one area of robo-calling that does seem to be effective is "robo-push-polling", though there's quite a margin between various ad hoc studies. It seems that the interactivity/non-passivity of the faux survey, with questions designed to elicit changes in attitude, plays a role in their effectivity. Again, I'll look the cites up later.

There is legitimate phone surveying. If you're uncertain about key issues in your district it's an effective tool but now-a-days it seems that the difference between push-polling and legit polling can be confusing.

Has anyone received any push polling beyond the earlier reported incidents? Maybe we can collectively put together a list of who is bombarding us. I know I have about 10 calls on the answering machine now.

I have been getting many robo calls, so many from one candidate that I am irritated. I know these calls are cheaper than mailings, but do they get results?

It would be an interesting post election analysis to see if the candidates who used extensive (or any) robo calls are winners.

Citizen Will do you have any information on the effectiveness of robo calls supporting specific candidates, compared to general GOTV robo calls.

For those who learn visually, p. 5 of this doc puts Mark K excellent explanation of the appeals process to picture.

http://www.nccourts.org/Citizens/Publications/Documents/JudicialSystem.pdf

Terri, was just re-reading your post and add:

Also, those Federal District Court judges, like all federal judges don't run for election. All are appointed by the President. None of them are elected. So when you're telling people about any judicial elections, you should never find yourself talking about the federal court system.

Thanks Mark. Sounds like we need to be paying much more attention to the candidates for the Court of Appeals--no jury, end of the road decisions.

How unfortunate that the federal court gets nicer furnishings than the state courts. :) I assume the state pay scale increases as you move up the hierarchy. Is that correct?

Interestingly, Mark H. applauds Democracy NC for judicial election reform in the same post where he supports Mr. Nelson's campaign financing.

Democracy NC would certainly object to the out of county donations.

Terri,

The NC Supreme Court is the court of last resort in North Carolina. The Chief is the head of the judicial branch of government. She is joined on the court by 6 Associates. They hear cases that originate in district court, and superior court. (only some special district court cases though). Many cases come to them after having been heard through the Court of Appeals, except Death Penalty cases which the allows to by-pass the Court of Appeals and go straight to the Supreme Court. Death cases consume a vast amount of Supreme Court time (a little less in recent years).

The Court of Appeals is the intermediary appeals court. Parties appeal decisions from the lower trial courts. There are lots of Court of Appeals judges to handle the tons and tons of cases they receive each year. They break up into 3 judge teams to hear each case. (Actually they don't "hear" most cases. Most cases are decided only on the papers). If you lose a case in the Court of Appeals, unless one of the 3 judges has dissented, you don't have a right to appeal any further. You'r done. You can ask the NC Supreme Court to review the case, but they don't have to if the Court of Appeals was unanimous, i.e. 3-0.

Superior and District Courts are our trial courts.
Superior Courts handle felonies and civil cases involving large sums of money. Its the court where juries are seated to decide cases. Like the Peterson trial. District Court has trials too, but there are no juries. The judges decide the cases. They handle small crimes, traffic, juvenile, and family law cases. If you have a trial in District Court and you lose, you have a right to ask for a jury to decide your case in Superior Court. If you choose to exercise that right, the decision of the District Court judge is not factored into the ultimate outcome.

There are some exceptions to how cases flow through the system, but that's pretty much how it works.

One of the confusing elements is that the Federal Trial court is also called District Court. It's like a state superior court, only the furnishings are nicer. There are juries, etc. They only handle cases when the issue turns on a federal law. They don't concern themselves with issues of state law except in some very limited circumstances. If you lose a case there, you appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia and then to the US Supreme Court. US Supreme Court review is of course discretionary, you rarely ever have a right to have them review your case.

Thanks Duncan and Gerry for the explanations and the references. I'm working the polls on Tuesday and want to be able to explain this to others (I am still vacillating between Allen Baddour, Charles Anderson and Carl Fox--still irritated by the Dalzell case).

Slightly off-topic: Can someone please verify that I have the court functions correct?

State Supreme Court: highest level of state court, hears appeals cases from the superior court (only appeals?)

Superior Court: state level court that hears felony cases, civil cases of value over $10,000 in jeopardy, and appeals cases from the lower municipal court

Appeals Court: state level court that hears appeals from lower level trial or appellate courts stemming from errors in law, fact, or due process (traffic court? what other courts are lower level?)

District Court: first level of federal court system, hears civil and criminal trial cases. (what courts send cases to the district court?)

There's actually been some stirring in the General Assembly about re-examining the retirement age issue.
The statute involved is:
http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_...
§ 7A‑4.20. Age limit for service as justice or judge: exception.
No justice or judge of the General Court of Justice may continue in office beyond the last day of the month in which he attains his seventy‑second birthday, but justices and judges so retired may be recalled for periods of temporary service as provided in Subchapters II and III of this chapter.

In 2005, two bills were filed to allow a DISTRICT coutr judge who reaches age 72 to finish the term of office, although neither bill got out of committee:
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2005&Bil...
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2005&Bil...
A house committee actually approved a bill last year to allow any judge to finish the entire YEAR in which they reach 72, rather than just the month they turn 72 (the bill was sent back to committee)
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2005/Bills/Senate/HTML/S523v3.html (see section 4)

Mark C,

The Indy's explanation is simply wrong.

Stein does not "have" to become a recalled retired judge when he retires. He can ask to become one and, if the chief justice sees fit, he can become one. He'll join more than two dozen other recalled retired judges on the state list, most (if not all of whom) have much more experience on the bench than Stein would have if he were to serve his 2 1/2 years. I don't know who the Indy spoke to at the AOC (and it's curious that they're not quoted by name), but everything I hear from actual recalled retired judges and the AOC indicates that any one of the retired judges is rarely called.

Because of the number of recalled retired judges on the list, openings are coveted and tend to be assigned by seniority, years on the list, and geographic proximity. But geographic proximity, for us, includes Wake County, and there are many retired Wake judges on the recalled list who are more likely to get appointed in Wake and in Orange before Stein.

If expansion in the Triangle requires more judges, the legislature will approve more permanent judgeships. The idea that the AOC would rely on recalled retired judges to take up the slack is silly and has never been the case.

Stein has managed to muddy the waters on this issue significantly if someone as informed and intelligent as Terri Buckner is still puzzled by it. He has acted with disrespect for the office by running as if its eight-year term of office were of no concern, that 2 1/2 years of Adam Stein on the bench is worth throwing off one of the two worthy, experienced, and outstanding judges we already have hearing cases _right now_. He's acted with disrespect for the office by raising the issue of recalled retired judges and then failing to explain that issue properly, and in only the most pie-in-the-sky optimistic terms.

Adam Stein will rarely hear cases after he is retired in 2 1/2 years. I'm so sure of that, I've put my money where my mouth is.

As you all can probably guess, I have some disagreements with Duncan Murrell's posts. Not a lot of fun to read! However his recent statement

"Having watched one of those treasurers spend much of the time between the 21st and the 29th, three hours a night, getting everything straight and legal using the BOE's !@#$%&* software, I'm not sure how much quicker it could have been done without updating the software and making it more user friendly."

is one that I totally agree with. I'm planning to write up some fairly strong complaints to the State Board of Elections after this is all over and hope that other campaign finance people will do the same. We had to keep two separate databases since there's no way to import into the state's archaic software.

Anxiously awaiting Wednesday,
Jane Stein

Mark K says: "but I understand that for you and many it is the only issue"

I closely follow all of the county's and CHCCS BOE's agenda items and many of the Chapel Hill items and have commented on many of these topics. I closely follow national issues. I frequently email and speak to the county commissioners and staff about a variety of topics. I kindly ask that you stick to discussion of the facts rather than resorting to personal attacks.

Mark K says: "These monies come from people who are very active in their local communities."

County commissioner elections are about people in a county electing their commissioners. As others have stated, this is not a state or national race, it is a county race. When out of county people choose to move into the county, then they can vote and contribute money to influence the election. I am okay with a small amount of out of county money for startup costs. Where we disagree is that you appear to think that any amount of external influence is okay. The point is that the contributors we are discussing do not live in this county, so their level of activity in their own county is irrelevant.

I agree with Will's points about the lack of distribution of money to other candidates who support gay rights. Would Mrs. Gordon and Mr. Jacobs qualify for such support given their support of gay rights?

I agree with Terri's point that the lesser amounts of money should be distributed to more gay rights candidates.

Dan Coleman says: "I agree with Mark Peters about keeping funding for campaign local (it is arguably somewhat different when the race is for a state or national office)."

Thanks Dan.

MarkP