When a district court seat opens, which county bar associations get to vote on the nomination list submitted to the Governor — the bars in the judicial district as it exists today, or the bars in the district as it existed on January 1, 1987?

Plain-English summary

When a district court seat opens up between elections in NC, the Governor fills it by appointment. The Governor doesn't pick a name out of thin air; statute requires the judicial district bar to nominate three or more lawyers, and the Governor must appoint from that list.

The wrinkle in 1993 was that judicial district boundaries had shifted between 1987 and 1993, and a Rockingham County district court seat was about to open. The 17A Judicial District Bar President asked: when the Rockingham County seat opens, does the Caswell County Bar (which had been in the 17A district in 1987, and may or may not still be after redistricting) get to vote on the nomination list?

Senior Deputy AG Ann Reed and Special Deputy AG Charles Hensey answered yes: the Caswell County Bar does get to vote, because the statutory cross-reference freezes judicial district bar composition for nomination purposes to whatever the configuration was on January 1, 1987.

The statutory analysis:

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-19 sets out the composition of judicial district bars. The current wording came from Chapter 316, section 3, of the 1987 Session Laws, ratified June 8, 1987.
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-142 sets out the procedure for filling a district court vacancy. The current wording (in 1993) came from Chapter 1056, section 7, of the 1988 Session Laws, almost a year later than the § 84-19 amendment.
• The 1988 amendment to § 7A-142 cross-references § 84-19. The AG reasoned that because § 84-19 had been amended in 1987 to set out the bar configuration, and § 7A-142 cross-referred to § 84-19 in 1988, the legislature meant to use the § 84-19 configuration as it existed on January 1, 1987 (which is when the 1987 amendments to § 84-19 took effect).
• That freeze applies even if subsequent redistricting moves counties between districts. The point of freezing is so that the same body of attorneys who would have voted on a nomination in 1987 still gets the say on filling vacancies, no matter how the lines change.

So for the upcoming Rockingham County seat, Caswell County attorneys were entitled to participate because Caswell County was part of the 17A Judicial District on January 1, 1987. And conversely, when a Caswell County judgeship would later open, the Rockingham County attorneys would be entitled to participate, because Rockingham County was also part of the same district on January 1, 1987.

The opinion also notes a Voting Rights Act wrinkle: the underlying district court redistricting had been requested for Section 5 preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice on August 9, 1993, but had not yet received it as of the September 23, 1993 opinion date. Section 5 preclearance was required because the NC redistricting affected voting in a covered jurisdiction.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. NC has gone through multiple rounds of judicial redistricting since 1993. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was essentially neutralized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), so preclearance is no longer a step. The January 1, 1987 anchor that the AG identified in this opinion may have been superseded by subsequent statutory amendments. Anyone advising on a district court vacancy today should read the current text of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-142 and § 84-19, plus any statutory cross-references, before assuming the 1987 freeze still controls.

Background and statutory framework

NC's district court system was created in the 1960s as part of a constitutional restructuring of the trial courts. District courts hear most civil matters under a jurisdictional threshold, misdemeanor criminal cases, family law cases (custody, support, divorce, juvenile abuse and neglect), and certain other matters. District court judges are elected in nonpartisan elections (for most of NC's history; partisan and nonpartisan periods have alternated) for terms of four years.

When a vacancy opens between elections (death, resignation, retirement before end of term, elevation to a higher court), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-142 requires the district bar to nominate three or more attorneys for the Governor's consideration. The Governor must appoint from the list. The appointed judge serves until the next general election when the office is on the ballot.

The judicial district bar nomination structure is the legal-community equivalent of senatorial courtesy in the federal judicial system. The local lawyers who appear before the court are presumed to know the qualifications of potential nominees better than statewide officials. The bar's role is consultative but legally required: the Governor cannot bypass the bar.

The January 1, 1987 freeze that the AG identified is structurally similar to the kind of frozen-baseline rules courts use in voting-rights and apportionment cases. It avoids the practical problem of redistricting-by-vacancy: if redistricting could expand or contract a judicial district bar's nominating territory mid-term, the bar's role would be unstable. The frozen baseline keeps the same body of nominators across redistricting cycles.

Common questions

Does this opinion still control judicial district bar nominations today?

Probably not directly. The legislature has amended both § 7A-142 and § 84-19 multiple times since 1993. The January 1, 1987 anchor may have been replaced by a different reference date or by new statutory language. The opinion's general reasoning (cross-references can freeze a baseline configuration) remains useful as an interpretive framework, but the specific January 1, 1987 conclusion needs to be verified against current statute.

Why was the Voting Rights Act mentioned?

NC was a covered jurisdiction under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act until 2013. Any change in state or local election procedure that affected voting (including who could vote on judicial bar nominations) needed advance approval from the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before it could take effect. The 1993 NC judicial redistricting was awaiting that approval at the time of the AG's opinion.

What happens if a judicial district bar fails to nominate?

The statute requires the bar to submit names. If the bar fails to act, modern practice is that the Governor may appoint from any qualified attorney in the district. Historically, refusals to nominate have been rare.

Can a member of the district bar self-nominate?

Yes, attorneys interested in the seat typically signal interest to the bar's nominating committee, and the bar votes on which names to forward. The actual mechanics vary by district.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/district-bar-nominations-to-vacant-district-court-judgeship/

Citations

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-142 (district court vacancy fill procedure)
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-19 (judicial district bar membership)
• 1987 N.C. Session Laws Ch. 316, sec. 3 (ratified June 8, 1987)
• 1988 N.C. Session Laws Ch. 1056, sec. 7
• Voting Rights Act § 5 (preclearance, then in effect)

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official NCDOJ web posting. Some intermediate paragraphs are not reproduced here; consult the linked landing page for any portion not shown.

September 23, 1993

Ms. Emily Parker, President
17A Judicial District
220 East Meadow Road, Suit 1
Eden, North Carolina 27288

Re: Advisory Opinion; district bar nominations to vacant district court judgeship

Dear Ms. Parker:

This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion on who may participate in the nominating process to determine the names of the persons to be submitted to the Governor for appointment to a District Court seat that will become vacant around November 1, 1993.

[Discussion notes that the relevant district court redistricting had been submitted for Voting Rights Act preclearance on August 9, 1993, by the Administrative Office of the Courts, but had not yet been precleared as of the date of this letter.]

The current wording of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-19 was put in place by Chapter 316, section 3, of the 1987 Session Laws, ratified June 8, 1987. The current wording of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-142 containing the reference to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-19 was put in place by Chapter 1056, section 7, of the 1988 Session Laws, almost a year later. It seems clear, therefore, that the General Assembly, for whatever reason, intended to freeze judicial district bars that select nominees for appointment to vacant district judgeships to judicial districts as configured and in existence as of January 1, 1987. Accordingly, under this statute, because Caswell County was a part of the 17A Judicial District on January 1, 1987, the members of its bar have a right to participate in the nominating process for the new judge in Rockingham County.

Under the same reasoning, the Rockingham County Bar would have a right to participate in the nomination of a replacement for a Caswell County Judgeship that in the future might become vacant before the end of the term.

Ann Reed
Senior Deputy Attorney General

Charles M. Hensey
Special Deputy Attorney General