The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, acting in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court, shall make assignments of Judges of the Superior Court and may transfer District Judges from one district to another for temporary or specialized duty. The principle of rotating Superior Court Judges among the various districts of a division is a salutary one and shall be observed. For this purpose the General Assembly may divide the State into a number of judicial divisions. Subject to the general supervision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, assignment of District Judges within each local court district shall be made by the Chief District Judge.
History Note. - The provisions of this section are similar to those of Art. IV, § 9, Const. 1868, as that article was rewritten in 1962.
CASE NOTES
The issuance of a nunc pro tunc commission was unquestionably lawful and in full accord with the Constitution of North Carolina. State v. Eley, 326 N.C. 759, 392 S.E.2d 394 (1990).
The issuance of a commission by the Chief Justice assigning a superior court judge to preside over a session of superior court does not endow the judge with jurisdiction, power, or authority to act as a superior court judge; the commission so issued merely manifests that such judge has been duly assigned pursuant to the Constitution to preside over such session of court. The judge's jurisdiction, power, and authority as a superior court judge flow from the Constitution of North Carolina and his appointment and commission by the Governor as a superior court judge. State v. Eley, 326 N.C. 759, 392 S.E.2d 394 (1990).
Where the evidence showed that a judge was instructed to hold superior court in a certain county by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, defendant did not have a valid argument that the judge lacked a commission to conduct criminal court. State v. Price, - N.C. App. - , 611 S.E.2d 891 (2005).
Validity of Superior Court Election, Rotation, and Residency Provisions. - There can be no doubt as to the validity under the federal Constitution of the provisions of the North Carolina Constitution requiring the election of superior court judges by districts or statewide as prescribed by the legislature, or that the State be divided into divisions and districts and judges rotate among the districts, or that they reside in their respective districts. Holshouser v. Scott, 335 F. Supp. 928 (M.D.N.C. 1971), aff'd, 409 U.S. 807, 93 S. Ct. 43, 34 L. Ed. 2d 68 (1972).
The system of rotating superior court judges does not deny a defendant due process of law on grounds that in a protracted trial more than one judge might rule on the many motions. State v. Williams, 304 N.C. 394, 284 S.E.2d 437 (1981).
Judicial Notice of Assignment of Judges. - The Supreme Court would take judicial notice of the minute book showing the assignment of judges by the Chief Justice, and would take notice that the superior court judge holding the particular term of court in question had been assigned to hold said term. Staton v. Blanton, 259 N.C. 383, 130 S.E.2d 686 (1963), decided under former Art. IV, Const. 1868.
The commission to preside, issued by the Chief Justice, was sufficient and the assigned judge had proper jurisdiction when he signed both the equitable distribution judgment and the order dismissing defendant's appeal. Lockert v. Lockert, 116 N.C. App. 73, 446 S.E.2d 606, cert. granted in part and denied in part, writ of supersedeas allowed, 338 N.C. 311, 450 S.E.2d 487 (1994).
Three-Judge Panel for Redistricting Challenges Does Not Infringe on Chief Justice's Authority. - The provisions of G.S. 1-267.1, within the specific context of a challenge to redistricting, do not impermissibly infringe on the Chief Justice's authority to assign judges, pursuant to his powers under N.C. Const. art. IV, § 11. Stephenson v. Bartlett, 358 N.C. 219, 595 S.E.2d 112 (2004).
As to statutes implementing corresponding provision of former Art. IV, Const. 1868, prior to its revision in 1962, see Baker v. Varser, 239 N.C. 180, 79 S.E.2d 757 (1954).
Cited in Republican Party v. Hunt, 841 F. Supp. 722 (E.D.N.C.), aff'd sub nom. Republican Party v. North Carolina State Bd. of Elections, 27 F.3d 563 (4th Cir. 1994); Carr v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp., 49 N.C. App. 631, 272 S.E.2d 374 (1980); Republican Party v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1992), rehearing denied, 991 F.2d 1202 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 828, 114 S. Ct. 93, 126 L. Ed. 2d 60 (1993); Vance Constr. Co. v. Duane White Land Corp., 127 N.C. App. 493, 490 S.E.2d 588 (1997).