(1) Superior Court districts. The General Assembly shall, from time to time, divide the State into a convenient number of Superior Court judicial districts and shall provide for the election of one or more Superior Court Judges for each district. Each regular Superior Court Judge shall reside in the district for which he is elected. The General Assembly may provide by general law for the selection or appointment of special or emergency Superior Court Judges not selected for a particular judicial district.
(2) Open at all times; sessions for trial of cases. The Superior Courts shall be open at all times for the transaction of all business except the trial of issues of fact requiring a jury. Regular trial sessions of the Superior Court shall be held at times fixed pursuant to a calendar of courts promulgated by the Supreme Court. At least two sessions for the trial of jury cases shall be held annually in each county.
(3) Clerks. A Clerk of the Superior Court for each county shall be elected for a term of four years by the qualified voters thereof, at the same time and places as members of the General Assembly are elected. If the office of Clerk of the Superior Court becomes vacant otherwise than by the expiration of the term, or if the people fail to elect, the senior regular resident Judge of the Superior Court serving the county shall appoint to fill the vacancy until an election can be regularly held.
History Note. - The provisions of this section are similar to those of Art. IV, § 7, Const. 1868, as that article was rewritten in 1962.
Defeated Amendment Proposals. - An amendment proposed by Session Laws 1981, c. 504, and defeated at the general election held in 1982, would have substituted "at the places and on the day prescribed by law" for "at the same time and places as members of the General Assembly are elected" at the end of the first sentence of subsection (3).
An amendment proposed by Session Laws 1985, c. 768, s. 9, and defeated at the primary election held on May 6, 1986, would have amended this section by adding "except that those elected in 1986 and 1988 shall serve for a term of five years" at the end of the first sentence of subsection (3).
An amendment proposed by Session Laws 1985, c. 768, s. 9.1(1), and defeated at the primary election held on May 6, 1986, would have amended this section by adding "except in 1988 at the same time and place as members of the United States House of Representatives are elected" at the end of the first sentence of subsection (3).
CASE NOTES
Election of Judges Not Mandated by Federal Constitution. - North Carolina could by 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).
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 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).
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).
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).
Applied in State ex rel. Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 385 S.E.2d 473 (1989).
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); Bradshaw v. Administrative Office of Courts, 320 N.C. 132, 357 S.E.2d 370 (1987); 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); Capital Outdoor Adv., Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 109 N.C. App. 399, 427 S.E.2d 154 (1993); Blankenship v. Bartlett, - N.C. App. - , 646 S.E.2d 584 (2007).
Opinions of Attorney General
Regarding requirements for becoming a Senior Resident Superior Court Judge, see opinion of Attorney General to Honorable Thomas Ross, Superior Court Judge, N.C. General Assembly, 1999 N.C.A.G. 14 (5/27/99).