Editorial: Problem is with courts' administration and leadership, not Justice Earls
Thursday, Jan. 18, 2024 -- All of our judges and justices should be held to the highest objective standards - not determined by obedience to partisanship or political patronage. Citizens must have unflinching confidence in the honesty, fairness and integrity of their judicial system.
Posted — Updated
- The North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission ended an investigation and dismissed a case brought against North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls because she had the temerity to question the lack of diversity in the state’s judicial system. “The Commission’s decision to dismiss the complaint against Justice Earls is final and no further action will be taken against her for her statements that were the subject of the complaint,” said Earls’ lawyer in the case, in a release issued Wednesday.
- In an appropriate gesture, apropos of the high standards of judicial temperament Earls has adhered to, she voluntarily dropped the federal lawsuit she’d filed against the Commission claiming the investigation was an effort to deprive her of her First Amendment rights and silence her.
- Who initiated the complaint to the state Judicial Standards Commission that prompted Earls’ lawsuit; why the investigation was ended and the case dismissed.
- Was this baseless investigation initiated as a partisan or even race-based attack on one of the two Democrats on the state’s high court and only elected African American on the court?
- Would the case in federal court eventually lead to public disclosure of the details of the complaint and state Judicial Standards Commission investigation? Would that unveil the people and motives? Did the commission dismiss the case to avoid such disclosures?
There are some direct steps that can be taken in an effort to re-establish our courts as places where justice and the law – not political party or partisan prejudice – are paramount.
In consultation with Justice Earls, the Judicial Standards Commission should release to the public who made the complaint against her and why it determined that there was basis to pursue it.
Further, Chief Justice Paul Newby and Justice Phil Berger Jr. should request INDEPENDENT review of their questionable political actions and statements for determination if they were, or were not, in line with the state’s judicial conduct standards for the behavior of judges and justices. The process and findings should be public.
The state bar – since 1933 the agency created by the legislature to regulate the legal profession -- should initiate an independent review of the Judicial Standards Commission with the mission to determining to what degree its actions evolved to be more about politics than adherence the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct and how the legislature’s expanded role in determining membership of the Judicial Standards Commission has made it more political.
The leaders of our courts must focus on justice. That’s the State Constitution’s mandate.
Copyright 2024 by Capitol Broadcasting Company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
