Judicial elections are nonpartisan, and rightly so. Justice knows no “R” nor “D!” I am running for a new judicial seat created by the legislature in recognition of the Fifth District’s growing population. Because there were 4 candidates for this seat, there was a primary election on May 4 (with early voting April 15-May1) to narrow the “field” to 2, that is the top two vote-getters who will advance to the general election on November 2. The results of the May 4th primary have allowed my candidacy to advance to the November 2nd election. The judicial races are at the end in the “Nonpartisan offices” section of both Republican and Democratic ballots. Unaffiliated voters may vote in the primary on either party’s ballot, or may select a “Nonpartisan” ballot, which includes only the judicial races and the sales tax referendum (New Hanover only). Judges, thus judicial candidates, are prohibited from espousing the platform of a particular political party, and can promise only to know the law and to honor the oath of office, which is to render justice fairly and impartially. I think most would agree this is how it should be.

Judicial independence means that judges are free to decide cases fairly and impartially, relying only on the facts and the law. It means that judges are protected from political pressure, legislative pressure, special interest pressure, media pressure, public pressure, financial pressure, or even personal pressure. It means those things because we are a “nation of laws”.  A judge’s decisions should be based on the evidence and the law.As a judge I would make decisions fairly and impartially and I would be conscious of avoiding any personal biases or personal feelings about an outcome.

Judicial independence goes back to the U.S. Constitution. Our country’s founders worked to protect courts from undue pressure. They knew that it takes fair and impartial judicial decisions to protect our rights—and uphold the rule of law. It is the notion of independence that distinguishes the third and co-equal Judicial branch of government from the Legislative branch and the Executive branch. Judges are not beholden to any constituency, except the law itself!

As a judge, I would work hard to make fair and impartial decisions, to protect the rights of the public, and to uphold the rule of law.

Judicial independence is not meant to protect the judiciary or any individual judge from meaningful accountability. Examination and responsiblity provide a balance which is critical to a workable judiciary in which judges can make decisions which may be publicly unpopular, but legally correct. Judges are accountable through our appellate court system and review of unprofessional conduct by our Judicial Standards Commission; answerability is enhanced by fair and open courtrooms and coverage by unbiased news media.

Judges are not insulated from feedback and  constructive criticism. Criticism and debate of judicial decisions are a healthy-indeed a vital-part of America’s political and governmental discourse and are protected by the First Amendment. If America’s judiciary is to remain healthy, vigorously autonomous, and able to perform its constitutional functions without improper influences, it must be immune to special interest and attacks by those who seek to influence judicial decision-making.

No one expects judges to be perfect, or to please everyone. That’s why there are mechanisms to hold judges accountable. Rulings can be appealed  to the appellate courts. Laws can be changed by the legislature. Wrongdoing and ethical violations can be punished. And in North Carolina, judges are accountable to the electorate (District Court judges’ terms are four years).

 Judicial candidates should avoid making the types of statements that are common in campaigns for legislative or executive offices. Making commitments to the voters about the policies one will pursue in office is a common feature of elections to executive or legislative office. By contrast, judicial candidates should  avoid making promises in the form of declarations about how they will decide a particular case, or a class of related cases, or issues. In addition, while a candidate for judicial office may announce his or her own qualifications for the bench, he or she is expected to avoid attacking opposing candidates in an aggressive manner. Each judge must be prepared to put his or her personal opinion about a law aside and rule based on what the law is and what the evidence is–whether it is consistent with the judge’s personal opinion or not. That’s what is meant by the Rule of Law.

These restrictions are called for by the very nature of the judicial office which requires that judges  not prejudge any situation. Judges decide cases as they are presented and must approach decisions in an impartial manner; judges must strive to be aware of and set aside biases and prejudices and to be competent in understanding other cultures. Indeed impartiality may be the very essence of the “good judging.”

In evaluating a candidate for judicial office, it is critical to examine his or her credentials: What kind of law did the candidate study and practice and for how long? Was  her success rewarded or recognized by her or his peers and the state bar? Did she  work to contribute to the growth of the legal profession and reach back to younger, less experienced lawyers? Has the candidate demonstrated leadership and a commitment to the community in which  she lives? Is the candidate capable of making prompt and fair decisions? Does she demonstrate a strong work ethic? Does the candidate work diligently and reliably? Does she demonstrate commitment to the growth and education of the judiciary and legal profession? Does she strive to be a better judge, better lawyer, and better person?

I would be committed to making well-reasoned, prompt, fair and impartial decisions based on the law and facts presented. After a 24 year career in private practice, I continue to study the law and meet rigorous requirements of my State Bar Board certification in family law, as well as continuing education in other areas of law. I work hard, spending far more than 40 hours each week, to balance my professional obligations with participation in statewide and local activities designed to enhance the legal profession and the judiciary. I continue to stay connected to and active in our community through my leadership and work in my church, my children, schools, and various community boards and charities.

I will decide the cases that come before me independently and impartially. I will treat all persons who come into my courtroom with respect. And each day I will work to be a better judge than the day before. I want the public to know me, my work ethic and my commitment to an independent, fair and effective justice system.