North Carolina

Legal Aid of North Carolina is set to launch Innovation Lab, which aims to improve access to justice through technology integration, data collection, and collaboration. The Lab reflects a broader movement towards transformative approaches in the legal sector that emphasize evidence-based innovation and improved service delivery.

The North Carolina Justice for All Project, created in 2020 to expand access to justice through regulatory reform, is a testament to the power of advocacy and the potential for individuals to drive change.

The IAALS Court Compass project is exploring streamlined and simplified solutions that help people through the divorce and separation process. IAALS is partnering with the North Carolina Judicial Branch and the North Carolina Equal Access to Justice Commission to bring a design sprint workshop to Raleigh on August 11, 2018.

This week, the North Carolina Senate created the new Senate Select Committee on Judicial Reform and Redistricting to consider various options for how the state selects judges. The committee’s formation comes after the North Carolina legislature took several steps recently to shake up the state's judicial system. Back in March, the legislature voted to override the governor’s veto of House Bill 100, which requires North Carolina Superior Court and District Court judges to identify their party affiliation on ballots. Proponents of the bill say voters want to know everything they can about judicial candidates when they vote. Opponents, like the governor, argue the bill politicizes the courts.

The North Carolina Bar Association is exploring how tweaks in its judicial evaluation process can have real impact on results. As recommended by both the NCSC and IAALS, the latest performance evaluation surveys included a structured free recall exercise that urged attorneys to think of specific experiences with the judges they are about to rate, rather than general impressions, along with both positive and negative aspects of those experiences.

In the last few weeks, legislators in two states have passed laws aimed at influencing upcoming supreme court decisions. In Kansas, trouble has brewed between the judiciary and the other two branches, stemming largely from state court decisions ordering the legislature to spend more on public education. Meanwhile, the Republican majority in the North Carolina legislature has instituted retention elections, in place of contested elections, for supreme court justices seeking additional terms.

Four of the seven seats on the North Carolina Supreme Court are on the ballot in November. The current ideological balance on the court is 4-3, with a Republican majority, and three of the four seats up for election are currently held by Democrats. Commentators anticipate millions of dollars in special interest spending in the coming months.

In 2012, North Carolina was the only state with contested judicial elections in which voters were provided with performance evaluations of the judicial candidates—both sitting judges and challengers—on their ballot. It is fairly common for bar associations to offer ratings of sitting judges standing for retention or reelection, but this was the first instance of which IAALS is aware where a bar association also evaluated judicial challengers. Since 2012, the NCBA has also offered a voluntary, confidential evaluation program for new judges.

The North Carolina legislature sent to Governor McCrory for approval a bill that would revamp the state's elections, including eliminating public financing for appellate judicial elections. Created in 2002 by the Judicial Campaign Reform Act, the so-called "Voter-Owned Elections" program allowed candidates with qualifying contributions to receive a public grant to finance their campaigns and eliminated the need to seek campaign support from attorneys and others who may later appear before them in court.

Two Republican lawmakers proposed a bill that would make judicial elections partisan again. Democrats led the charge to make them nonpartisan a decade ago, but at least in the 2012 appellate court elections, the party affiliation of the candidates was clear.