Special interests at both ends of the political spectrum have contributed heavily to candidates in judicial elections. In one hotly contested election in 1994, plaintiffs' attorneys gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone of no judicial experience to unseat a sitting Supreme Court justice because of his perceived conservative views. Although the plaintiffs' lawyers' candidate was eventually defeated, in all more than three-quarters of a million dollars were spent by three candidates for this one seat on the Court. Elections by popular vote are for those who want to put in place certain governmental policies so they can attract a constituency. This is not the case for judges who, except in a very limited sense, do not establish policy.
Judges decide cases.
They consider cases which are properly before them and brought by aggrieved parties. For the most part, they decide them on the basis of legal Constitutional principles, statutes, common law, and precedents. Judues must often make decisions which are NOT popular. The judiciary is answerable to the people because the people can change the Constitution, and legislatures can change the common law and the statutes. Also, North Carolina judges are susceptible to administrative removal from office by action of the Judicial Standards Commission and the Supreme Court for questions of performance or ethics.