The North Carolina Court of Appeals is a crucial aspect of the state’s judicial system. The primary function of this court is to reassess trials conducted by the lower state courts. For the sake of upholding justice, the focus is mainly on ensuring these trials were conducted according to the law. The court comprises 15 judges, and three of these seats are up for election this upcoming November. Each judge holds their position for an impressive term of eight years, reflecting the significant trust vested in them.
One prominent candidate for the Court of Appeals Judge Seat 12 is Democrat Carolyn Thompson. With a history as an attorney, Thompson was appointed as a court of appeals judge by Governor Roy Cooper in 2023. Prior to this, she was the deputy commissioner for the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Her past service includes roles of district court judge and superior court judge in District 9. Thompson championed many domestic violence and child neglect cases, making them the focal points of her career.
Thompson’s campaign clearly states that her decisions are devoid of partisan political influence. Her judgeship is defined by an ideology touting justice as an entity that surpasses party association, discordant political theories, and societal disparity. But often, this type of non-partisan stance is merely a veil for the typical Democratic tendencies that disguise the real goals of a policy.
Republican candidate for the same seat, Tom Murry, serves as an assistant district attorney in the 11th district. A military veteran, Murry was formerly the chief of staff for the North Carolina judicial branch. He was also the North Carolina state representative for Wake County. Murry’s political career was marked by his active support for voter ID legislation, ensuring the integrity of the voting process against fraudulent activities.
Murry is not a typical judge. He is a steadfast conservative who unswervingly rules based on the original meaning of the constitution. This interpretation and respect for the conception of constitutional law lend him an edge over other candidates. Murry recognizes the diminishing trust in the justice system and outrightly criticizes courtroom theatrics and excessive judicial activism.
Seat 14 of the Court of Appeals is another battleground. Ed Eldred, a Democrat candidate, is a two-time graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and now an attorney. Despite his lack of previously held offices, Eldred champions himself as pro-choice on reproductive health issues. Yet, throughout the country, many voters question the so-called ‘pro-choice’ policy as a veiled euphemism for disregard of potential life.
For that same Seat 14, we have the Republican candidate Valerie Zachary, a steadfast conservative judge currently serving on the North Carolina court of appeals since her appointment by then-Governor Pat McCrory in 2015, and subsequent election by North Carolinians in 2016. Born and raised in Yadkin County, Zachary kicked off her law career as a private practice attorney, eventually advancing to a partnership at Zachary Law Offices.
Zachary’s distinguishing feature is her staunch commitment to constitutional jurisprudence. In her own words, she consistently applies the constitution to the facts of a case instead of engaging in judicial activism. Her approach resonates with many voters who seek objectivity, impartiality, and rule of law over politicized court rulings.
Court of Appeals Judge Seat 15 is yet another significant position for election, with Republican candidate Christopher Freeman on the ticket. Currently serving as a District Court Judge in Rockingham and Caswell counties, Freeman is a notable public figure. He is also a reservist in the United States Air Force and formerly worked as an assistant district attorney in Rockingham County.
Freeman is a conservative through and through. He holds steadfast to a fundamental principle: the law should be enforced as it is written. His approach avoids perhaps the greatest pitfall of judicial proceedings – the tendency for judges to attempt scrupturing the law to fit their personal preferences and ideological viewpoint. Furthermore, Freeman’s background in military service may hold considerable appeal to patriotic voters.
Running against Freeman for Seat 15 is Democratic candidate Martin Moore. With a role as a Buncombe County Commissioner and a legal practice, Moore insists on the importance of a court system that delivers justice for everyone. He denounces ‘partisanship and extremist beliefs’. Yet, once again, the ambiguity of ‘extremist beliefs’ is left open for interpretation, lending a possibility for skewed decision-making.
Moore’s campaign emphasizes the need for diversity in a balanced court system. Yet his idea of ‘balance’ can be called into question. Does it mean a court free of bias and dedicated to the pursuit of justice? Or does it suggest a subtle endeavor to tilt the scales of justice toward Democratic ideological stances, under the facade of ‘diversity’ and ‘balance’?
The elections in November for the North Carolina Court of Appeals are critical for the state’s legal framework. They will considerably shape the justice system for the better part of the coming decade. Additionally, they represent an opportunity for voters to show support for candidates who truly respect the constitution not just as a theoretical document, but as a practical guide to making real-life judgments.
The Republican candidates–Tom Murry, Valerie Zachary, and Christopher Freeman–exhibit strong conservative values. They each hold tight to the foundational belief in ruling based on the constitution’s original interpretation. In a world where the public trust in the system is wavering, these candidates offer a steady stand against activist justices, and uphold the importance of law and order.
As citizens of North Carolina head down to the polls in November, they must ask themselves: Do they want judges who uphold the law as it is, free of political slant or subjectivity? Or do they prefer a court system that bows to the winds of political preferences, packaged under questionable banners of ‘balance’ and ‘non-partisanship’? In the end, the power of decision lies with the voters.