Why vote when the system is twisted?

I voted yesterday, though I'm not sure why. The only race on the ballot was a state Supreme Court contest with four candidates. I knew very little about any of them, and I was left to wonder once again why we vote for judges. "I want my vote heard," say proponents. "The right to vote is sacred." But what good does it do you to vote when you don't know anything about the candidates?

Each time someone defends voting for judges, I ask him or her to name the judicial candidates on the ballot. Can't do that? Then name the last judge you voted for. Can't do that? Then what good was your voting? You may as well draw names out of a hat.

There is a better way: Have state judges appointed by the governor, perhaps with advice and consent of legislators, from a list of qualified candidates vetted by the State Bar. Reserve for the public the right to recall judges before their terms expire and the right to approve or disapprove of judges (and thereby remove them) in a referendum at the end of a six-year or eight-year term. This system would preserve public influence without the corrosive effects of judges begging for and potentially being influenced by campaign donations.

While we're fixing elections, let's fix the corrupt system of allowing legislators to gerrymander their own electoral districts. This system has given us a Congress and state legislators in which few incumbents face serious opposition and where many incumbents face no opponents at all. The districts are rigged by legislative redistricting. A couple of states have taken legislators' manipulative options away and turned redistricting over the non-partisan commissions with mandates to create compact, impartial districts without regard to their impact on incumbents' future electability. A bill to do the same in North Carolina has been sent to committee, where it will assuredly die without ever being considered. Fixing redistricting would go far in fixing the impasses in Washington and the animosity between the far wings of both parties.

Here's why we shouldn't elect judges

If you want to see why North Carolina shouldn't be electing judges, meet District Court Judge Bill Belk. He could be the poster child for a rational campaign to make judges appointive, with the periodic opportunity to recall judges by popular vote.

I've already met Belk. He lived across the hall from me one year in a UNC dormitory. He was a "wild and crazy guy" at the time and let everyone know that he was an heir to the Belk department store fortune. In one memorable episode, Bill decided he should invite Tricia Nixon (the then-president's then-unmarried daughter) to the UNC-Duke football game. He persuaded me, who he said was a better writer than himself, to write the letter inviting Tricia to be his date for the game. I did it but worried that I might be picked up by the FBI or Secret Service. Weeks after the game, Bill received a polite reply  from Ms. Nixon's social secretary informing him that she was busy that weekend. Our paths crossed again in 1980 when I moved to Wilson to work for the newspaper, and Bill was here learning the department store business from the late Herb Jeffries at the local Belk store.

Since that time, Bill had some sort of falling out with other members of the family, left the family business and got a law degree. After a judge ruled against him in a divorce case, according to the Charlotte Observer, Belk filed to run against the judge and won, likely on the basis of his family name, which still stirs respect in Charlotte. Not only did his grandfather locate the headquarters for his stores there, but his uncle, John Belk, served admirably as mayor and has his name on a major city freeway.

Now Bill Belk faces potential discipline from the Judicial Standards Commission. (Read the judge's response to the discipline filing.) He has made accusations about the judicial system and has refused to resign from a corporate board in violation of state policy for judges. Would Bill Belk be appointed by any sane governor to decide court cases? Not a chance. But voters, who usually know nothing about judicial candidates, might vote for a familiar name and end up with a mess like this one.