Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges of the Court of Appeals, and regular Judges of the Superior Court shall be elected by the qualified voters and shall hold office for terms of eight years and until their successors are elected and qualified. Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Appeals shall be elected by the qualified voters of the State. Regular Judges of the Superior Court may be elected by the qualified voters of the State or by the voters of their respective districts, as the General Assembly may prescribe.
History Note. - The provisions of this section are similar to those of Art. IV, § 14, Const. 1868, as that article was rewritten in 1962.
Defeated Amendment Proposals. - An amendment proposed by Session Laws 1985, c. 768, s. 6 and defeated at the primary election held on May 6, 1986, would have amended this section by adding "except that those elected in 1982, 1984, 1986, and 1988 shall hold office for terms of nine years" at the end of the first sentence.
Legal Periodicals. - For comment on changing North Carolina's method of judicial selection, see 25 Wake Forest L. Rev. 253 (1990).
For article, "Tuesday, February 11, 1868: The Day North Carolina Chose Direct Election of Judges," see 70 N.C.L. Rev. 1825 (1992).
CASE NOTES
The one man, one vote rule does not apply to the State judiciary, and therefore a mere showing of a disparity among the voters or in the population figures of the district would not be sufficient to strike down the election procedure for superior court judges. A showing of an arbitrary and capricious or invidious action or distinction between citizens and voters would be required. 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).
Election of Judges Not Required by Federal Constitution. - North Carolina could by her Constitution provide for the appointment of all State judges without violating any provision of the federal Constitution. The election of superior court judges is not a necessary characteristic of a republican form of government and is not required by the Constitution of the United States. This is a political rather than a judicial question. 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).
Election to Fill Unexpired Judicial Term of Office. - Section 163-9, insofar as it provides for elections of judges to fill only the unexpired portions of eight-year terms, is authorized by N.C. Const., Art. IV, § 19; therefore, it does not violate this section, providing that judges "shall be elected . . . and shall hold office for terms of eight years." Brannon v. North Carolina State Bd. of Elections, 331 N.C. 335, 416 S.E.2d 390 (1992).
Session Laws 1987, c. 509, which amended G.S. 7A-41, did not deny certain citizens their "fundamental right" under this section to vote for judges at the expiration of their eight-year terms of office; the right to vote per se is not a fundamental right under North Carolina's Constitution; instead, once the right to vote is conferred, the equal right to vote is a fundamental right. State ex rel. Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 385 S.E.2d 473 (1989).
By enacting Session Laws 1987, c. 509, the legislature eliminated staggered terms within multi-seat judicial districts by creating a one-time interim or hiatus between certain terms of office; as the Constitution anticipates such "hold over" situations by providing that elected judges remain in office "until their successors are elected and qualified," the act was not unconstitutional. State ex rel. Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 385 S.E.2d 473 (1989).
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).
A superior court judge is a hybrid official with both local and statewide functions and authority. The requirement that he reside in the district from which he is elected is a matter of convenience, making him available to hear emergency matters, and convenience is an essential factor in arranging an effective judicial system. He rotates among the districts of his division, and may be assigned beyond his division by the Chief Justice. Thus, there is a reasonable basis for the election procedure requiring him to be nominated in the primary election and elected in the general election by statewide vote, and it serves and achieves a legitimate State purpose and is not arbitrary and capricious. 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).
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); 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).