Why You Should Not Judge a Book by Its Cover: Looking beyond Party Affiliations to Discern Patterns in Judicial Decisionmaking in the North Carolina Supreme Court: An Analysis of Voting Trends in Criminal and Tort Cases from 1995-2002

By Ryan, Rachel | Albany Law Review, Spring 2004 | Go to article overview

Why You Should Not Judge a Book by Its Cover: Looking beyond Party Affiliations to Discern Patterns in Judicial Decisionmaking in the North Carolina Supreme Court: An Analysis of Voting Trends in Criminal and Tort Cases from 1995-2002


Ryan, Rachel, Albany Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION

The people of North Carolina have the power to elect the justices who sit on the state's Supreme Court. (1) Between 1995 and 2002, the registered voters of the state used this power to transform the court from one dominated by Democrats to one controlled by Republicans. (2) From 1995 to 1998, the court was composed of five Democrats and two Republicans. (3) The election of Republicans Mark Martin and George L. Wainwright, Jr. in 1999, both taking seats formerly held by Democrats, marked the beginning of the change. (4) In 2000, Republicans I. Beverly Lake, Jr. and Robert H. Edmunds, Jr. won their races, further shifting the balance of the court, and leaving only two Democrats still holding seats. (5) The 2003 election ushered in another Republican justice--Edward Thomas Brady--and created a court comprised of six Republicans and one Democrat. (6)

This high court study of the North Carolina Supreme Court was conducted in order to determine what impact, if any, this dramatic shift in the court's political composition had on its rulings in both criminal and tort cases. Did the court's voting pattern fluctuate as a result of the changes in the number of Democratic or Republican justices? And if so, would it be possible to judge a court simply based on the party affiliations of its members? This study addresses these questions. In order to gain insight into the effect recent changes have had on the court, one must go beyond the partisan labels of the justices and examine each justice's voting record and individual writings to discern the true nature of each one's decision-making process. (7) This study was designed to explore these issues and provide a comprehensive analysis of the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Part II describes the methodology used to conduct this study. It will also expand on what is meant by "conservative" and "liberal" in the judicial sense, labels that will be used to provide a general idea of each justice's judicial approach. Part III briefly discusses the court's organizational structure and the justices who were included in the study. Parts IV and V examine and analyze each justice's voting record along with his or her judicial values and philosophies. Part VI assesses the court as a whole and concludes that during the eight-year period considered, the court remained conservative when voting on criminal cases, but became more liberal in its treatment of tort cases.

II. THE STUDY

The methodological process of this study involved analyzing both criminal and tort cases decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court that resulted in divided opinions. (8) Criminal cases were examined separately from tort cases in order to determine whether a particular justice's voting tendency would remain consistent regardless of the subject matter. Only cases filed between 1995 and 2002 were included in this study. By utilizing a two-part analysis, a broad and in-depth understanding of each justice's decision-making process emerged.

The first part of the analysis was quantitative in nature, providing a general picture of each justice's conservative or liberal leanings. This study reviewed forty-two criminal cases; in each case a justice's vote was labeled either pro-defendant or pro-prosecution. A vote was classified as "pro-defendant" if it operated to protect the rights of the accused: conversely, a justice's vote was classified as "pro-prosecution" if it favored an outcome the state desired or advocated.

This study also analyzed thirty tort cases; for each case, a justice's vote was labeled as either pro-individual or pro-tortfeasor. A vote was labeled "pro-individual" if the reasoning used to support the vote protected the rights of an allegedly injured party. If the vote protected the alleged tortfeasor, to the detriment of the allegedly injured party, it was deemed to be a "pro-tortfeasor" vote.

Graphing the pro-defendant and pro-individual voting percentages demonstrated the voting tendencies of each justice, and the court as a whole. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Why You Should Not Judge a Book by Its Cover: Looking beyond Party Affiliations to Discern Patterns in Judicial Decisionmaking in the North Carolina Supreme Court: An Analysis of Voting Trends in Criminal and Tort Cases from 1995-2002
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.