LUMBERTON — A proposed remapping of election districts for Superior Court and District Court seats and for district attorneys was approved by the state House of Representatives.
The plan would combine Robeson and Scotland counties, and has been criticized by local judges who believe it hurts the county. Currently all of Robeson County is in 16B.
The approval vote was taken at 9:50 p.m. after two hours of debate and was split largely along party lines. The final vote was 69 in favor and 43 against. Two lawmakers did not vote, and six were absent.
The vote among Robeson County’s House delegation was along party lines. Ken Goodman, Charles Graham and Garland Pierce, all Democrats, voted no. Brenden Jones, a Republican, voted yes.
“It goes to the Senate,” Pierce said. “But I don’t think the Senate has any intention to take it up and deal with it.”
Both legislative chambers are scheduled to be in session Monday. The House calendar shows debate of three vetoes by Gov. Roy Cooper. The Senate calendar shows only procedural matters.
The General Assembly is in session until Oct. 17 in order to give Gov. Roy Cooper 10 days to either sign legislation into law or veto legislation, Pierce said. This gives the Senate time to debate the judicial redistricting legislation. Or the senators can hold it and not take it up until January when the Legislature reconvenes.
Sen. Danny Britt, a Republican who represents Robeson County and is an attorney, has said he does not support the legislation and does not believe the Senate will approve it — if it considers it.
The redistricting plan would result in Robeson County, now a one-county judicial district, being combined with Scotland County. Robeson County currently has two Superior Court judges of its own and Scotland County has one. The new district would have only two Superior Court judges, one living in Robeson County and one in Scotland County.
Both Robeson and Scotland counties currently each have their own district attorney. The newly created district would have only one.
If the new districts were approved, it would delay District Attorney Johnson Britt’s retirement to 2020. Britt has indicated he will retire at the end of next year, but there would not be an election until 2020.
Rep. Justin Burr, a Stanly County Republican who shepherded the judicial redistricting, said it would bring much-needed uniformity and fairness to Superior Court and District Court boundaries while increasing the actual number of judgeships. But Democrats said most of the changes occurred in urban counties — where their party is strong — and suggested litigation was ahead because the maps would result in fewer black judges than are currently seated.
Republican legislators had the proposed judicial maps in mind earlier Thursday when they gave final approval to a separate elections bill that would eliminate primaries for all court races in 2018 only and delay candidate filing for those races from February until late June.
GOP leaders say not having primaries for judges in 2018 would give lawmakers more time to fashion new judicial election districts and avoid having to reset candidate filing. Senate Republicans also have linked any district changes to a possible overhaul of how judges — currently elected by voters — are chosen in North Carolina.
The bill “shows we are serious about judicial redistricting,” said Rep. David Lewis, a Harnett County Republican, on the House floor.
Democrats questioned the motivation for the delay, suggesting a GOP partisan advantage in appeals court races not affected by redistricting. They said the lack of judicial primaries will mean free-for-all elections and voters having little or no information about the candidates.
The winner is “going to be the luck of the draw … or maybe it will be the best sounding name,” said Rep. Darren Jackson of Wake County, the House minority leader.
The judicial primary cancellation was attached to a bill that would permanently reduce requirements for unaffiliated candidates to run in state and local elections and for political parties to field candidates up and down the ballot. The bill also would permanently lower the threshold a leading candidate would need to meet in order to avoid a primary runoff. The candidate would need to receive more than 30 percent of the votes cast, down from 40 percent.
