Members of the state Bar Association are convinced North Carolina needs a better plan for seating the state’s judges. We are, too.

Currently, judges are elected in non-partisan voting. In principle, the process is a basic exercise in democracy allowing the voters to decide who should serve. But the reality is potentially much different and troubling.

As State Bar Association president-elect Martin H. Brinkley put it to the Elizabeth City Rotary Club last week, the judicial election process in North Carolina is “inching backward” resulting in a “steady decline in the quality of our judges.”

Brinkley explained two key reasons why the quality of judges is facing a decline — and why the residents of North Carolina should be alarmed.

For one, many of the best judicial candidates are walking away from the onerous political requirements of running for office. Many with the best legal background, knowledge and court expertise have no interest in or time for the rough-and-tumble campaign battlefield that exemplifies our elections. In addition, qualified judicial candidates — especially those seeking seats on the state Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court — are out of their element seeking campaign donations in order to run in elongated statewide campaign.

The other focus driving advocates of reform is the simple fact of voter ignorance. Voters don’t know enough about the candidates they are voting for — not enough to make an informed decision based on judicial qualifications.

Consider how often voters pick up a ballot in the voting booth and not even recognize the names of candidates running for statewide judicial offices. Most North Carolina voters in general have little knowledge of the record, qualifications and ability of appellate court and supreme court candidates on the ballot. Often, voters just skip over judicial races in the polling booth, leaving the matter of who will sit in these key decision-making positions to chance.

That’s what concerns the state Bar, lawmakers, business leaders and many others whose work and interests are affected by judicial decisions. And for good reason. These courts rule on issues that affect the gamut of state policy from education to business to the environment. It’s vital that those who deliberate and rule at this level have the expertise of law and the proven skills of jurisprudence.

Yet, the average resident has only limited knowledge about how the state’s legal system works. It’s little wonder why citizens don’t have an informed opinion about candidates running for the state’s judgeships. They wouldn’t unless they made the effort to research each candidate before going into the voting booth. Some do, but most don’t.

So what are the alternatives?

A proposal by the Bar Associations as outlined last week by Brinkley, recommends a “merit election system” that would allow the voters to continue to elect judges. But the judge candidates they would be voting on would first be vetted and recommended by a non-partisan judicial nominating commission. Members of the non-partisan panel would include lawyers and lay people representing a range of interests.

This “hybrid proposal” preserves the principal of electing judges in North Carolina. But it would serve the purpose also of ensuring that the state’s judicial posts would be filled with qualified men and women.

Unfortunately, if state history is any guide, the chance for such a change is precarious. Seven times since 1974, the State Bar has attempted to change the system for electing judges. Seven times, the group has failed. Hence, while the proposal has merit, it still would require an amendment to the state constitution — a feat not impossible, but clearly difficult.

It would take convincing voters that, absent the time and inclination to invest in researching the candidates themselves, they can depend on more informed people to offered qualified choices.

The other alternative is to play it straight with voters: Allow them to continue to directly elect judges but make a better effort at informing them.

Rather than a non-partisan committee to recommend candidates, maybe what’s needed is a direct voter education plan to do a better job of informing the public about candidates and the vital work they perform, demonstrating why qualifications are so important.

The Bar Association and other groups could partner with organizations such as the League of Women Voters, the media and local non-partisan groups to vet all the judicial candidates and rate their qualifications, which would be available to voters.

For voters who prefer to be fully involved in the process, this is the better alternative. But given the effort, time and expense — not to mention the questionable interest and commitment of many voters to inform themselves — that such an education campaign would require, it may be years, if ever, before this plan would affect elections.

The Bar Association’s proposal, on the other hand, offers more immediate results and the likely expectation of being successful. The cost for that payoff is a public willing to cede a portion of its elective power to the state.