news-record.com

Suzanne Reynolds would make an excellent addition to North Carolina's Supreme Court. But subtracting Bob Edmunds would be a significant loss.

On balance, it's better to keep Edmunds. Voters should re-elect the Greensboro resident to a second eight-year term on the state's highest court.

Edmunds, 59, is a respected and well-liked justice, an anchor on the state's centrist high court. In addition to experience in his current seat, he served two years on the N.C. Court of Appeals, was the top federal prosecutor in North Carolina's Middle District for seven years and practiced law privately in Greensboro. He's a U.S. Navy veteran and holds a master of laws degree.

Reynolds, 59, also practiced privately in Greensboro before beginning a career teaching law at Wake Forest in 1981. She's known as a brilliant academic who keeps in close contact with lawyers' groups. She's regarded as the state's leading authority on family law.

Edmunds is the only justice whose seat on the seven-member Supreme Court is up for election this year. His six colleagues, however, shouldn't think they're not involved. In a sense, Reynolds is running against the entire court -- and she has raised serious concerns about the way it operates.

Reynolds notes the court's declining output, a years-long trend. It accepts fewer cases and writes fewer opinions, more often adopting either a majority or dissenting opinion from the Court of Appeals without writing a full opinion of its own.

This leaves too many legal questions inadequately resolved or explained, Reynolds contends. Many lawyers share her concern, and some suspect the court is shielding itself from political fallout by minimizing its handling of controversial cases. If that's true, the court is failing to meet its responsibilities. North Carolina needs a productive Supreme Court that shines a bright light on important issues and illuminates the shadowy corners of the law, giving clear guidance and direction to all the lower rungs of the judicial system.

Whatever the court's shortcomings, however, holding Edmunds solely accountable isn't the answer. The whole court has to address its deficiencies, and he's as capable as any of its members. While Reynolds is brave to raise these issues, there's no promise she could accomplish more than Edmunds. In addition, though her knowledge is formidable, it only exceeds his in some areas of the law. His many years of courtroom experience dealing with the full range of legal matters give him an overall advantage.

Edmunds deserves a second term, and he should use it to strengthen the court as a whole.

A detailed look at the candidates.