Baker v. Martin

• Decision Date: 06 December 1991
• Docket Number: No. 246PA91,246PA91
• Citation: 330 N.C. 331,410 S.E.2d 887
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: James Leonard BAKER, Jr. v. James G. MARTIN, in his capacity as Governor of the State of North Carolina; Lacy H. Thornburg, in his capacity as Attorney General with the State of North Carolina; and J. Todd Bailey, in his capacity as President of the 24th Judicial District Bar.

Page 887

410 S.E.2d 887

330 N.C. 331

James Leonard BAKER, Jr. v. James G. MARTIN, in his capacity as Governor of the State of

North Carolina; Lacy H. Thornburg, in his capacity as

Attorney General with the State of North Carolina; and J.

Todd Bailey, in his capacity as President of the 24th

Judicial District Bar.

No. 246PA91.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 6, 1991.

Petree, Stockton & Robinson by William F. Maready and G. Gray Wilson, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff appellant.

Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by Isham B. Hudson, Jr., Sr. Deputy Atty. Gen. and David Roy Blackwell, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for defendants appellees.

WEBB, Justice.

The first question presented in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has standing to bring this action. The defendants, relying on Nicholson v. Education Assistance Authority, 275 N.C. 439, 168 S.E.2d 401 (1969) and Watkins v. Wilson, 255 N.C. 510, 121 S.E.2d 861 (1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 46, 82 S.Ct. 1166, 8 L.Ed.2d 398 (1962), argue that the plaintiff has not been injured by the action of the defendants in this case, and for this reason the plaintiff does not have standing to bring the action. The record shows that the plaintiff went to the meeting of the Twenty-fourth District Bar Association at which the nominees were selected. He was not considered because of his political party affiliation. This is a showing of sufficient injury to the plaintiff so that he has standing to bring this action.

The plaintiff contends that N.C.G.S. § 7A-142, which governs the appointment of persons to fill the unexpired terms of district court judges, violates the Constitution of North Carolina. N.C.G.S. § 7A-142 provides in pertinent part:

A vacancy in the office of district judge shall be filled for the unexpired term by appointment of the Governor from nominations submitted by the bar of the judicial district.... If the district court judge was elected as the nominee of a political party, then the district bar shall submit to the Governor the names of three persons who are residents of the district court district who are duly authorized to practice law in the district and who are members of the same political party as the vacating judge[.]

The plaintiff contends that certain provisions of the North Carolina Constitution set the qualifications for appointment to the office of district court judge and, by placing the additional qualification on candidates that they be members of the same political party as the vacating judge, N.C.G.S. § 7A-142 violates the Constitution.

The plaintiff relies on N.C. Const. art. VI, § 6 which provides:

Sec. 6. Eligibility to elective office.

Every qualified voter in North Carolina who is 21 years of age, except as in this Constitution disqualified, shall be eligible for election by the people to office.

The plaintiff says that he is a qualified voter who is 21 years of age and no other provision of the Constitution disqualifies him from office. He says that he is eligible under this section of the Constitution to be appointed district court judge and that the General Assembly by requiring that appointees be members of a certain political party has unconstitutionally added a qualification for the office of district court judge.

In determining the constitutionality of a statute we are guided by the following principle: "[e]very presumption favors the validity of a statute. It will not be declared invalid unless its unconstitutionality be determined beyond reasonable doubt." Gardner v. Reidsville, 269 N.C. 581, 595, 153 S.E.2d 139, 150 (1967), quoting Assurance Co. v. Gold, Comr. of Insurance, 249 N.C. 461, 463, 106 S.E.2d 875, 876 (1959). See also Mitchell v. Financing Authority, 273 N.C. 137, 159 S.E.2d 745 (1968); State v. Matthews, 270 N.C. 35, 153 S.E.2d 791 (1967); Ramsey v. Veterans Commission, 261 N.C. 645, 135 S.E.2d 659 (1964). This is a rule of law which binds us in deciding this case.

The appellant contends, and the minority agrees, that N.C. Const. art. VI, § 6 applies to both appointments and elections to office. They say that except as the Constitution provides otherwise, and there are no such provisions in this case, this section makes the plaintiff eligible for the office of district court judge and the General Assembly cannot add another qualification. They base this contention on the heading to the section which says "[e]ligibility to elective office." They contend that this includes both election to office and appointment to the office.

We do not believe the heading to N.C. Const. art. VI, § 6 makes the meaning of the section so clear that the unconstitutionality of N.C.G.S. § 7A-142 can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. The plain words of the section deal with the eligibility "for election by the people to office." The plaintiff and the dissenters would have us interpret this language, because of the heading, to say that it deals with a class of office called "elective office[s]" rather than a process called "election to office." This distorts the plain meaning of the words used in this section.

The dissent's interpretation which attributes the overriding meaning of the section to the heading requires manipulation of the actual text. Only by emphasizing the term "elective" as found in the heading can this section of the Constitution be read as referring to a whole class of offices as opposed to referring to what makes one eligible for "election to office." In order to make clear the interpretation advanced by the dissent, N.C. Const. art. VI, § 6, should be amended to read as follows: "[e]very qualified voter in North Carolina ... shall be eligible for [elective office]." Such an amendment would require changing "election" to "elective" and deleting the words "by the people." If, as the dissent proposes, this section is to apply both to elections to office and appointments to elective office, the words "by the people" are unnecessary. A gubernatorial appointment requires no participation "by the people." However, the words "by the people" are very much a part of the section, and they make it clear the section refers to the process of election.

N.C. Const. art. VI, § 6, should not be read as referring to elective office generally, because such a construction creates an inconsistency between § 6 of art. VI, and § 2 of the same article. As noted above, § 6 states that "[e]very qualified voter ... shall be eligible...." Under § 2, however, a qualified voter must have "resided in the State of North Carolina for one year and in the precinct, ward, or other election district for 30 days next preceding an election...." N.C. Const. art. VI, § 2 (emphasis added). Under the dissent's view, one must only be a qualified voter to be eligible for appointment to an elective office. Yet, because the appointment could occur at any time, the language in § 2 requiring residency for thirty days "next preceding an election" is uncertain of application. Section 2 and § 6 are perfectly consistent and understandable if each is regarded as referring to an "election to office." But, in some cases it could be impossible to determine, prior to an election, if a nominee for appointment to an elective office meets the residency requirement.

The history of N.C. Const. art. VI, § 6, supports the conclusion that it is meant to refer to an "election to office" situation rather than to appointment to an "elective office." In 1913, this provision in the Constitution was found in art. VI, § 7, and it read as follows: "[e]very voter in North Carolina, except as in this article disqualified, shall be eligible to office...." In Spruill v. Bateman, 162 N.C. 588, 77 S.E. 768 (1913), this Court held unconstitutional under this section a statute which prevented a person not an attorney from taking office as a recorder's court judge after he had been elected. Since that time the section was amended to read as it currently does, with reference to "qualified voter" and stating that the eligibility is for "election by the people to office." Clearly the scope of this section was narrowed by the amendment so that it applies only to election to office. The section is not affected by N.C.G.S. § 7A-142.

Even if we concede that N.C. Const. art. VI, § 6 is ambiguous, in that the italicized heading is broader than the body of the section, allegiance to the most basic principle of constitutional interpretation demands that the Court not take the extraordinary step of declaring N.C.G.S. § 7A-142 unconstitutional. It certainly is not clear that the General Assembly has overstepped its constitutional authority.

Since our earliest cases applying the power of judicial review under the Constitution of North Carolina ... we have indicated that great deference will be paid to acts of the legislature--the agent of the people for enacting laws. This Court has always indicated that it will not lightly assume that an act of the legislature violates the will of the people of North Carolina as expressed by them in their Constitution and that we will find acts of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution only "if the repugnance do really exist and is plain."

State ex rel. Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 448, 385 S.E.2d 473, 478 (1989) (citation omitted).

Justice Mitchell, in his dissent, argues that even if the majority is correct in its interpretation of N.C. Const. art. VI, § 6, N.C.G.S. § 7A-142 is still unconstitutional because it offends N.C. Const. art. VI, § 8. Justice Mitchell argues that the framers, by enunciating three disqualifications for office in N.C. Const. art. VI, § 8, meant to exclude all other disqualifications for office, whether the office be elective or appointive. To bolster his argument, Justice Mitchell summons forth the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, i.e., the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. As stated by Justice Mitchell, "under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius,...