news-record.com

It's a safe bet that most Americans know at least a few basic things about Sonia Sotomayor. Such as:

she's a judge;

she's been nominated by President Obama for the U.S. Supreme Court;

she's a New York Yankees fan;

she once said something controversial about wise Latina women;

and senators have been grilling her all week.

The Senate confirmation process isn't perfect, but it does let the public get acquainted with a person who's about to be elevated to one of the most important jobs in the country, for life. Sotomayor is actually famous.

In contrast, how many North Carolinians could name even one member of their state Supreme Court?

Probably very few, even though the voters elected each of the court's seven justices. Judicial elections just don't generate much interest. As a result, voters choose North Carolina's Supreme Court justices, and judges at lower levels of the court system, generally with less information about the candidates than they have about someone nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, for whom they can't vote.

No one proposes holding national elections for U.S. Supreme Court justices, but there have been calls for doing away with judicial elections in North Carolina. That would require a state constitutional amendment approved by voters voting not to vote anymore. Someone also would have to come up with an acceptable alternative for selecting judges. It's a tougher assignment than Sotomayor winning an endorsement from Jeff Sessions.

So, if candidates for North Carolina's highest court have to run for office, maybe they should be given the advantage of week-long, televised hearings where they can explain their qualifications and answer questions.

Anyone watching would definitely become a better voter.