Supreme Politics

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Since Anita Earls officially launched her reelection campaign in May, the state Supreme Court justice has vigorously campaigned with other Democrats. She  traveled with the state party on its Rural NC Listening Tour and introduced former Gov. Roy Cooper at the Democratic Party’s annual Unity Dinner.

On July 10, she spoke on behalf of state legislative candidate James Gailliard to 150 people gathered in a large event space that he and his wife own in Rocky Mount. 

While it might have been frowned upon a decade ago for a candidate for the state’s top court to attend such an event, it has become more frequent—for Democrats and Republicans alike. The state’s Code of Judicial Conduct allows such activity. While the code hasn’t changed in recent years, judicial candidates’ campaigning style has. 

“It’s an extremely common thing, I think, now, for judges to attend all sorts of kinds of political events,” Earls told The Assembly.

Gailliard and Earls both were first-time candidates in 2018, when he won a state House seat and she unseated incumbent Republican Barbara Jackson. They also worked together on the state Task Force for Racial Equity in Criminal Justice created after the murder of George Floyd in 2020. 

“James Galliard is a friend, but I’ve also been at numerous other candidates’ events,” Earls said. “They are helping me get the word out about why our courts matter. They’re helping me educate voters about my values and my background, which is what I have to do as a judicial candidate.”

North Carolina is one of only eight states that use overtly partisan elections to decide who presides over legal cases, according to Isaac Unah, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. That change occurred seven years ago, as many other states were moving to nonpartisan races or appointment processes.

In an era when the U.S. Supreme Court has punted major decisions to the states on divisive political issues such as partisan gerrymandering, abortion access, and certain voting rights questions, there is a heightened interest in who will be on the bench to rule on such cases.

Judicial candidates are in a tenuous spot. While the Code of Judicial Conduct allows them to attend and speak at political functions, it also attempts to balance partisan politicking by emphasizing “the need for an impartial and independent judiciary.”

They should avoid any “derogatory or intentionally misleading statements about an opponent or a sitting judge,” and not make political statements that show support for or curry favor for specific classes of individuals that might come before the court as parties, witnesses, or lawyers.

That leaves a gray area for candidates, and some wrestle with how partisan they should be. After Democratic Justice Sam Ervin IV lost reelection in 2022 with a message of judicial impartiality, he said at a party event a few months later that he should have run a more partisan campaign. 

“We’re in a period of time in which the average voter votes on the basis of party affiliation and nothing else,” Ervin said. “We need to have a unified party message.”

Earls’ campaign for another eight-year term—the only N.C. Supreme Court race in 2026—is expected to be one of the most-watched judicial races in the country. 

State Rep. Sarah Stevens, a Republican lawyer from Mount Airy, announced her campaign for that seat in April. They are the only two candidates to emerge so far.  

They have starkly different backgrounds. Earls, 65, a longtime civil rights attorney before joining the bench, now has more than six and a half years of opinions and rulings for voters to pore over. 

Stevens, also 65, has been a member of the state House since 2009. She’s been instrumental in the rightward political shift in state laws and policies after Republicans gained control of the General Assembly in 2011.

“We’re in a period of time in which the average voter votes on the basis of party affiliation and nothing else. We need to have a unified party message.”

former state Supreme Court Justice Sam Ervin IV

Stevens said this campaign is different from running for a legislative seat. 

“The biggest thing is about staying in your lane,” she told The Assembly. “And I understand that because I’ve been in different lanes. I know which one it is. It’s not a place to make law; it’s a place to enforce the law.” 

Public Confidence Dropping

During a congressional forum last month on voter suppression, American democracy, and elections, state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs leaned into the microphone on the stately wooden table in the U.S. Capitol.

Democratic senators invited Riggs to speak about her Republican opponent’s attempt to toss out more than 68,000 votes as part of a protracted effort to overturn her 734-vote victory.

At one point during the two-hour session, Sen. Paul Welch of Vermont turned toward Riggs and asked: “Does it really make sense to be having judges have to go through a partisan election? I mean that’s somewhat off topic, but that doesn’t sound good to me.”

“I will say it makes my job very difficult,” Riggs said.

North Carolina had partisan judicial elections for most of the 20th century when Democrats ran the state. As the state became more competitive in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Democratic legislators made judicial elections officially nonpartisan. 

Then, when many other states were moving away from partisan judicial elections, the Republican-led General Assembly in 2018 required that party affiliations of all judicial candidates be printed on the ballots.

“There’s a letter after my name because that’s what the policy makers in North Carolina decided,” Riggs told Welch. “But it’s also my job to make sure that people have faith in the impartiality and the fairness of the judiciary.”

Confidence in the American judicial system has dropped precipitously in recent years. A 2024 Gallup poll found trust in the judicial system at an all-time low with only 35 percent of the respondents saying they had confidence in the courts. More than half of Americans said they have little or no trust in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“There’s a letter after my name because that’s what the policy makers in North Carolina decided. But it’s also my job to make sure that people have faith in the impartiality and the fairness of the judiciary.”

state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs

The North Carolina trial and appellate courts have been facing headwinds, too. A 2022 survey conducted by Cygnal polling for the North Carolina Bar Association found that almost 51 percent of likely voters said they didn’t trust the judicial branch or had very little trust in it. Lawyers were surveyed, too, and nearly 65 percent said they placed “a great deal or fair amount” of trust in the branch.

Douglas Keith, deputy director of the Judiciary Program at the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, said North Carolina has had some of the most high-profile and hyperpartisan state Supreme Court races in recent years. 

The state “has seen the overt partisan manipulation of the rules around judicial elections in terms of adding party labels to the ballot, getting rid of public financing, all of those things,” he said. “And it has seen the national, ideological political stakeholders throw money at those races because of how important the court has been seen.” 

Checkers vs. Chess

After Republican Chief Justice Mark Martin resigned from the bench in 2019 to pursue other opportunities, Democrats briefly held six of the seven seats on the state Supreme Court. Then Republicans swept the races in 2020 and 2022, running as a team with GOP statewide judicial candidates. Each touted conservative values and a strict interpretation of the state Constitution. 

Democratic candidates struggled to counter that message, avoided talking about their judicial philosophies or their opponents, and lost close appellate court races. 

As the only two Democrats to win since races became partisan again in 2018, Earls and Riggs have adapted their campaigning style to the partisan format. They no longer brush off questions about some of the thornier social and political issues that their Democratic predecessors once did.

“I almost feel like Democrats want us to play checkers and Republicans have been playing chess for quite a while,” Earls said.

Both Earls and Riggs talk about their values on the campaign trail and highlight their rulings and opinions. Still, there are times when each has declined to elaborate on an issue, explaining that it’s a topic or specific matter that might come before them on the bench.

Both have faced ethics complaints filed with the Judicial Standards Commission for speaking publicly on topics their critics deemed outside the bounds of the Code of Judicial Conduct—allegations they say are an attempt to quiet them and a violation of free speech rights. None has risen to the level of a public reprimand or disciplinary action from the state Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter in such matters.

Last October, Riggs posted a response on social media to the three Republican state senators who filed the complaint against her. 

“Over the past 22 months on the campaign trail, you’ve heard me speak boldly about my values—including transparency, integrity, reproductive freedom, and democracy,” she said. “All voters deserve to cast an informed vote, which means knowing about my values and seeing the receipts on my opponent’s record.”

Earls knows she has to navigate a fine line to get her message out to voters while maintaining some semblance of impartiality and independence.

“What I hope voters will appreciate and try to do is judge the members of our court, myself included, on whether or not we behave as partisans once we’re on the bench, and whether we understand how to campaign as a member of a political party but rule in a way that’s fair and impartial,” Earls said.

Earls argued that it’s the General Assembly that has been reshaping the influence and autonomy of the judiciary.

“From my experience on the bench, the biggest threat to judicial independence has been the legislature and the legislature’s efforts to control how we rule,” Earls said. She recounted threats of impeaching judges who rule against their political agenda, and laws that shift judicial appointment powers to the General Assembly and the outright abolishment of seats on the bench.

After Republicans took control of the state Supreme Court, the majority granted a request from GOP legislators to rehear two cases on gerrymandering and voter ID on which the Democratic-majority court had previously ruled. The court took the rare step of reversing both cases in Republicans’ favor.

Earls Has Money Advantage

Democrats are focused on maintaining Earls’ seat as part of a broader plan to regain the majority by 2028. 

Democratic Party committees have contributed $129,490 to Earls’ reelection campaign during the first six months of the year, according to a report filed to the state Board of Elections on July 25. Individual donors contributed $418,890 during the same period, which outpaced Stevens’ contributions fourfold, according to her filing.

Stevens faced allegations earlier this month of violating campaign finance laws for one contribution she received in June. NC Newsline reported that Harold Brubaker, a former state House speaker-turned-lobbyist, likely violated state law when he contributed $6,800 to her judicial campaign. State law prohibits lobbyists from donating campaign funds to sitting legislators, even if they are seeking a different state office.

Stevens decided to give back that contribution, as well as $1,500 from Andy Munn, another lobbyist, WRAL reported.

Stevens said that when she ran for General Assembly, she could tell potential voters about the issues she cared about and the policies she supported. She said she understands the difference between running for the legislature and running for the Supreme Court. 

“At this point, my message is that I’m qualified and this is why I’m qualified,” she said. 

Stevens casts Earls as a judicial activist who legislates from the bench. Her team includes Paul Shumaker, a veteran GOP strategist who also advised Jefferson Griffin’s unsuccessful campaign last year. Shumaker blamed Riggs and Earls for how high-profile these races have become. 

“The reality is that you can give credit to Allison Riggs and Anita Earls for they have heightened the level of awareness we will see in the state Supreme Court races moving forward because they have chosen to cross that line into judicial activism,” he said.

‘Seven AOCs’

Democrats counter that it was Republican legislators who officially made Supreme Court races partisan, and that GOP judicial candidates were first to use openly partisan language. 

At a campaign rally in 2019, Justice Paul Newby, then the only Republican on the court, compared his six Democratic colleagues to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York congresswoman who calls herself a democratic socialist. 

“Imagine seven AOCs on the state Supreme Court,” Newby said. “I lose sleep at night thinking what it would be like if we had no one to hold accountable those that want to cause social change through our judicial branch.” 

Newby, who is now chief justice, declined to be interviewed for this article. 

In 2022, Justice Phil Berger Jr., a Republican who joined the top court a year earlier, posted an endorsement of fellow Republican Trey Allen in his race against Ervin, the incumbent Democrat.

“At this point, my message is that I’m qualified and this is why I’m qualified.” 

State Rep. Sarah Stevens

Caroline Dubay, then the executive director of the Judicial Standards Commission, then put out a memo reminding judges that they should not make endorsements when they’re not running for reelection. That led to her sudden resignation, and also caused some sitting judges to declare their candidacy for reelection almost immediately after assuming office in order to avoid the prohibition—therefore making them perpetual candidates.

Chris Dillon, a state Court of Appeals judge and chair of the Judicial Standards Commission at the time, later sent a memo to help judges understand “political conduct allowed and prohibited” under the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Judges may, according to his March 2022 memo, identify with a political party, contribute to a party or organization, be listed in publicity for a political event or fundraiser, but not as a host or sponsor.

And while judges can speak at fundraisers, they should be careful not to solicit contributions or financial support from the audience for the organization or candidate, it said. Nor should they endorse a candidate unless the judge is eligible to do so as a candidate themselves.

The North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct does prohibit judges and candidates from contributing financially to other political campaigns—but not their spouses. 

Stevens has received contributions from the spouses of two members of the state Supreme Court, according to her campaign finance report. Brent Barringer, an attorney and husband of Associate Justice Tamara Barringer, contributed $6,800 on May 19, according to the report, and Macon Newby, wife of Chief Justice Paul Newby, gave $3,800 on June 17. And Bryan Everly, Riggs’ husband, contributed $1,000 to Earls’ campaign on May 29.

Democrats say they are just adjusting to the Republican judicial campaign playbook while staying within the Code of Conduct.  

“We’ve got to play by the rules that they have set up,” Earls said. “I’m happy to have a long discussion about what the best rules might be in an ideal world.”

---

Jeffrey Billman contributed to this article. 

Disclosure: Brent Barringer, the husband of state Supreme Court Justice Tamara Barringer, is an investor in The Assembly.