As a refresher, Justice Riggs won her election to an 8-year term on the N.C. Supreme Court in 2024 by just 734 votes. In fact, Justice Riggs won her race many times over as she stood up to GOP efforts to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters and change the election rules and results after she won. So, she knows a thing or two about making sure all lawful votes count!

If you have not yet voted, please consider Justice Riggs’ insights below. If at all possible, go vote in person—early or on Election Day. Voting by mail is safe and secure. However, if there are any problems, it’s much easier to address those in person than if you vote by mail, especially this late in the cycle.

We are just 10 days out from Election Day 2026. If you are in North Carolina and have not voted, almost all of the important information you need to make a plan is here. Please vote, ask others to vote, and help make sure every vote is counted!

Regards,

J.D. Wooten

P.S. - Don’t forget our great candidates running for state-wide judicial office, including Justice Earls for the N.C. Supreme Court. You can support these incredible Democratic candidates through our 2026 NC Judicial Slate.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Allison Riggs <team@riggsforourcourts.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 3:07 PM
Subject: An important pre-election voting update
To: J.D. Wooten <jd@jdwooten.com>

Hi J.D.,

I wanted to make sure you have all the relevant information to make your vote count in this year’s midterm elections.

Right now, the rejection rate for mail-in ballots that have already been received here in North Carolina is 3%. This rate is double the rejection rate across the entire nation during the 2022 midterms.

If the 3% rejection rate holds, nearly 4,000 North Carolinians’ votes could be spoiled and discounted.

It is extremely important that you follow the State Board of Elections’ directions exactly if you plan to cast a mail-in ballot. Those directions can be found here.

Specifically, make sure both the inside envelope and outside envelope for your ballot are sealed securely. Don’t mistakenly think the inside ballot can be left unsealed.

Additionally, if you vote absentee by mail, please use a great tool we have here in NC — BallotTrax — to check on the status of your absentee ballot. Please don’t just put it in the mail and forget about it. Check BallotTrax *daily* until you can see that your ballot has been accepted and there were no problems.

If you are able to vote in person instead — during the early voting period (which ends on 10/31) or on Election Day (11/3) — I encourage you to use that option.

Click here for in-person early voting information >>>

Click here for information about voting on Election Day >>>

Thanks for being vigilant about your rights and the status of your ballot!

Allison

For those who may not have heard, my wife and I welcomed twin boys 10 weeks ago. Today, we started a new family tradition — we went to the polls together. I have no clue how long we can keep it going, but it was fun and I’m already looking forward to the next election!

We’ve decided not to post the twins’ pictures online, but here’s a fairly decent cartoon rendering. They got more attention than any candidate I’ve ever seen at a polling spot!

Also, here’s another with their outfits repping Work for Democracy. For anyone who may have doubted, I’m not above recruiting babies to fight gerrymandering!

At this point in the election cycle, I could pick any number of topics to dive into. However, the only persuasion that really matters now is persuading people to vote. Candidates need our support in the home stretch. Some still need money—my 2020 campaign spent ~$450,000 in the final week for TV ads, and we all know prices have gone up!—and almost all campaigns need people to make phone calls and knock doors.

Of course I recommend thinking about the judges first, but that’s our thing at Carolina Democracy. If you need a refresher on talking points for why voters should care about the Courts, here’s a post with a helpful guide courtesy of Judge Toby Hampson’s campaign. That said, helping any Democratic campaign with voter turnout helps them all, so sign up where ever you feel moved.

Coincidentally, Judge Hampson called me this afternoon to catch up on the race. It should come as no surprise that all of the judges still need our support. If you can, dig a little deeper and help them keep their TV ads running with a contribution to the 2026 NC Judicial Slate. Or sign up to make phone calls, knock doors, greet voters at the polls, or whatever else they may need in the home stretch.

This year has the makings of a very positive year for democratic norms and values, both for our Courts and elsewhere, but only if we fight all the way through the finish. We’ve got less than two weeks, let’s finish strong!!

Share

Last week, I explained why I’m only voting for Democratic candidates in 2026. For me, running as a Republican without vocally opposing the current administration and the MAGA agenda is disqualifying from public service in our Democratic Republic. I used the local election for Forsyth County District Attorney as an example.

As a reminder, Amara Hunter, a former police officer and Assistant District Attorney who currently serves as a public defender, is the Democratic Nominee for District Attorney. Jim O’Neill is the Republican incumbent who has been serving as District Attorney since 2009. As of last week, I understood them to both be “non-controversial, qualified, and respected candidates at the local level.”

As often happens in October, more has been revealed (spoiler: it only reinforces my support for Ms. Hunter). Yesterday, the local paper published written responses from both candidates to a handful of questions. To my surprise, one of those responses really caught my attention. While many of you will not be voting in this race, the lessons here are instructive for evaluating any candidate for any public office.

Share

I don’t take candidate surveys too seriously, especially as a former candidate myself. I mostly judge how well a candidate tries to stay on message. These written responses are often carefully crafted over several days with input from many people, so they should be well-polished responses that pivot to a campaign’s central messages. Only when they fail to do that do I usually take notice.

And that is why one of Jim O’Neill’s answers really caught me by surprise. Mr. O’Neill wrote, “my opponent, Amara Hunter, during the short time she spent in our office, proved to be such an incredibly inept trial lawyer that she had to be removed and substituted during a first-degree murder case in the middle of trial because she could not qualify an expert witness for the court.”

First and foremost, I seriously doubt that account is the full story of what happened at trial. Ms. Hunter’s account of that trial, published in a follow up story in today’s paper, tells a very different story. Regardless, even accepting Mr. O’Neill’s account as true, it reflects more poorly on him than Ms. Hunter.

On its face, this sounds like a sharp criticism of Ms. Hunter. However, Mr. O’Neill is actually alleging that he allowed an attorney under his management and supervision to walk into a courtroom unprepared for the job. That is far more disqualifying for his re-election to a job requiring sound management and leadership than any alleged poor performance at a single trial.

This answer really stood out to me because Mr. O’Neill volunteered this self-criticism. Accepting his account as true for the sake of argument, it calls into question Mr. O’Neill’s judgment and management far more than it does Ms. Hunter’s competence as an attorney.

Share

Last week I compared the District Attorney to a managing partner at a law firm. Well, I happen to work at a law firm. If a client hires me for a litigation matter, and I staff the case with attorneys unable to do the work for whatever reason, I am the one the client fires. Applying that same logic here, Mr. O’Neill is in the hot seat.

Here’s a different experience outside the practice of law for context. I spent over a decade on active duty before going to law school. When I was a young lieutenant brand new to my first unit, my immediate supervisor didn’t want to give a briefing to his boss’s boss. He asked me to handle it. Eager to please and get face time with the Colonel, I readily agreed, totally naive to how unprepared I was.

The briefing had about 40 PowerPoint slides. By the third slide, things were going poorly. On the fourth slide, this very senior Colonel stopped the briefing and dismissed me. The way he did it stuck with me. He was pissed. He had choice words for such a colossal waste of his time. But he never raised his voice at me, and he made it crystal clear he was not mad at me.

Instead, he was livid with all of the officers in the chain of command between me, the brand new lieutenant, and him, the colonel 30 years my senior, who had let me walk into that briefing room so woefully unprepared. That is what I expect in a real leader, and it’s what I want in our elected officials responsible for managing others.

Share

Mr. O’Neill’s answer caught me by surprise. While I doubt Mr. O’Neill’s recollection is entirely accurate, his own narrative reflects a failure of leadership from a seasoned District Attorney seeking yet another term. District Attorneys do not need to be the best trial attorneys in the office, but they do need to be competent leaders and managers. Mr. O’Neill’s attempted attack on Ms. Hunter instead only shows he may not be up to the job.

For the majority of you who will not be casting a vote in the race between Amara Hunter and Jim O’Neill, there are still lessons here as we head into the final stretch. First, take candidate surveys with a grain of salt and look for campaign themes; ignore the noise.

Second, consider every criticism of an opponent for what it actually says about both candidates. Some criticisms are exceptionally valid and we need to hear them. Others reveal far more about the person speaking than the person being criticized.

Finally, consider the qualities you actually want in a particular elected official. No candidate is perfect, and they are all open to some kind of criticism. The real question is -- so what? Even accepting a criticism as 100% true, which it rarely is, is there any relevance to the issues facing you or that candidate’s ability to do the job? If not, it’s just a distraction.

Sometimes you just need to go out and hear from candidates yourself. If you are local and want to come meet Amara Hunter, or just want to support her race, she’ll be having a fundraiser on October 19th with Governor Josh Stein. You can register here. I hope to see you there!

Share

P.S. - Don’t forget our great candidates running for state-wide judicial office, including Justice Earls for the N.C. Supreme Court and Judges Arrowood, Hampson, and Walczyk for the N.C. Court of Appeals. You can support these incredible Democratic candidates through our 2026 NC Judicial Slate.

Here’s the short version of today’s post — I’m only voting for Democratic candidates in 2026. There was a time I would vote across party lines, but not in the age of MAGA. For me, running as a Republican without vocally opposing the current administration and the MAGA agenda is disqualifying in our Democratic Republic.

Also, a quick plug before moving on to the rest of today’s post: on October 19th, Governor Stein is coming to Winston-Salem to support Amara Hunter for Forsyth County District Attorney. You can RSVP here to join us!

Now, for the longer version of why I’m only voting for Democratic candidates in 2026, let’s look at the race for District Attorney in Forsyth County. While Carolina Democracy has primarily focused on the judicial candidates in our court system lately, District Attorney is another critical elected office in the North Carolina judicial system.

District Attorneys are responsible for prosecuting all criminal cases in their local districts. Since that is far more work than any single attorney could ever do, District Attorneys function much like a managing partner for a county-wide or multi-county law office managing dozens or more prosecutors and staff.

District Attorneys also make key policy decisions about how to focus limited resources. For example, will their office focus primarily on violent crime? Will they put more emphasis on drug distribution offenses rather than simple possession? While the law defines crimes and provides sentencing guidelines, District Attorneys and their staff have a lot of discretion to decide when and how to prosecute individual cases.

Share

In Forsyth County, Amara Hunter—a former police officer and Assistant District Attorney who currently serves as a public defender—is the Democratic Nominee for District Attorney. Jim O’Neill is the Republican incumbent who has been serving since 2009.1

This is a race between non-controversial, qualified, and respected candidates at the local level. I do not know either candidate personally, but I share mutual friends with both. By all accounts, they are respected members of the local community. That makes this a great race to use as an example, especially since much of a District Attorney’s work is apolitical and nonpartisan.

A decade ago, I might have been torn. Ms. Hunter brings a breadth of experience to the position like few other candidates can. She would also bring a fresh perspective to an office that has had the same incumbent for over 16 years. On the other hand, one could make a compelling argument for keeping a respected incumbent with established working relationships.

However, in the age of MAGA, I will not consider voting for a Republican candidate unless they are a vocal opponent of the current administration and the MAGA agenda. Mr. O’Neill has openly embraced Trump in the past, and appears silent on the MAGA agenda today.2 Even setting aside his past embrace of MAGA, his silence today is enough to support my point here.

Share

Politicians and political parties respond to one thing above all else — power. Power comes through winning elections. Winners are not incentivized to change. Lose enough, and change will eventually follow. We must make Republicans lose enough at the ballot box to convince them that tolerating white Christian nationalism and grossly anti-democratic policies is unacceptable.

In local elections, candidates are often friends, neighbors, colleagues, or community leaders we have already met or worked with. With personal connections, it’s easy to look past a candidate’s party. I have done that in the past, and I hope to be able to do it again someday. But not right now. Right now, we need accountability for a conservative party that is actively dismantling our democracy.

That’s why I’m proud to support Amara Hunter and all other Democrats running for election this year. If and when Republicans clean house and stop fighting against the values that make this country great, I’ll reconsider. The Spirit of ’76 envisioned a country where all people (ok, men, but we’ve obviously made some progress here even if we have a long way left to go) are equal with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Only Democrats are fighting in support of that vision today. And that’s why Democrats like Amara Hunter deserve our support. If you are local to Winston-Salem and want to meet Ms. Hunter, or just want to support her race, she’ll be having a fundraiser on October 19th with Governor Josh Stein. You can register or contribute here.

Share

P.S. - Don’t forget our great candidates running for state-wide judicial office, including Justice Earls for the N.C. Supreme Court and Judges Arrowood, Hampson, and Walczyk for the N.C. Court of Appeals. You can support these incredible Democratic candidates through our 2026 NC Judicial Slate.

Almost all of the important information you need to make a plan can be found here. Pro tip: the earlier you vote, the earlier people will quit calling you to ask you to vote.1

Second, just today, national Republican funding groups cancelled T.V. ad buys and directed money away from supporting the GOP U.S. Senate nominee Michael Whatley. That money is now going to Kansas. Kansas last elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 1932 and holds the record for longest single-party control of both U.S. Senate seats of any state in the country.

That’s the good news. It means the GOP is all but writing off Whatley’s campaign and instead is focused on defending what should be guaranteed win in Kansas. Republican candidates across North Carolina will suffer from this shift as well. Any coattails they may have hoped for will disappear, much like down-ballot Democrats suffered in 2020 and 2022 when national Democrats left North Carolina.

Share

But it’s not all great news. When a major national or caucus funding shift like this happens, the other side also sees it at a chance to redirect money to closer races. That means national Democrats may focus less on North Carolina and leave Roy Cooper on his own to close out the race.

The race will now primarily be funded by the individual campaigns. As of the last reporting period, Cooper had raised more than three times as much as Whatley and had more than five times as much cash on hand to spend. Even with that massive advantage, I have no doubt Cooper’s team will continue to run like they are 10 points down and fight with everything they have until the last vote is counted. It’s not over yet, but it’s looking good for Roy Cooper.

Share

But there may be some bad news in this announcement as well. Like Cooper, down-ballot candidates will be more on their own now. However, they do not have the same fundraising machine of former Governor Cooper. And whatever coattails Cooper may have offered with massive outside spending focused on turnout will now be much smaller.

This puts our state-wide judicial races at risk. Justice Anita Earls has raised a staggering amount of money for a judicial candidate. But even that amount does not fund a state-wide field operation remotely comparable to a U.S. Senate campaign with ten times the budget or more.

Most people Cooper’s team drives to the polls will likely vote for Democratic judges as well. If the field operation supporting Cooper is smaller, that work is now on the down-ballot candidates to pick up the slack. And that means they need — you guessed it — more resources and more help.

Share

While the news today is great for national Democrats and Roy Cooper, we cannot overlook our down ballot candidates here in North Carolina. Chief Justice Cheri Beasley lost re-election in 2020 by 401 votes. Justice Allison Riggs won re-election in 2024 by 734 votes. Every vote is critical in our judicial races!

Now is the time to dig deep. Double down on your support for local candidates if you can. Even a few dollars can make all the difference in races that will be raising thousands of dollars, not millions.

For the judges, that means supporting Justice Earls and Judges Arrowood, Walczyk, and Hampson. You can support these rockstar Democratic judicial candidates via our 2026 NC Judicial Slate!

With less than six weeks until Election Day, and with about three weeks until in-person early voting starts (October 15th — more info here!), we have no time to waste in encouraging our friends and neighbors to get out and vote. And when they do, hopefully they will vote for judges who will respect and uphold democratic norms and the rule of law.

As a reminder, there are three seats up for election on the N.C. Court of Appeals this year, and four state-side judicial races in total (including Justice Anita Earls, up for re-election to the N.C. Supreme Court). Together, they are all part of our 2026 NC Judicial Slate.

Democrats can take back a majority on our North Carolina appellate courts by 2028, but we must defend all four of these state-wide judicial seats that Democrats currently hold this year.

In other words, if we want to protect the rule of law and democratic norms, we must elect all four of the judicial candidates on the 2026 NC Judicial Slate. Please consider supporting them today if you haven’t already (or again, that’s great too)!

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Judge Toby Hampson <toby@judgetobyhampson.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 1:30 PM
Subject: It’s all about 2026.
To: <jd@jdwooten.com>

Hello J.D.,

Here’s the reality: this year, the last three Democratic-held seats on the North Carolina Court of Appeals are on the ballot. We can ONLY take back the majority on the Court in 2028, if we protect these three seats in 2026. That means winning the Courts back in 2028 depends on us winning this year.

It’s critical we elect judges who have the right experience, a passion for the hard work of the Court, and who understand our judicial system only works when it serves the people and not an extreme partisan agenda.

Every time I sit on the bench, my goal is to stand up for the rule of law. Now, I ask you to stand with me.

Best,

Judge Toby Hampson

I am also a sucker for a good graphic, and I like the one his team put together above. Democrats currently hold 2 of the 7 seats on the Supreme Court and 3 of the 15 seats on the Court of Appeals. Four of those 5 seats held by Democrats are on the ballot this year. If Democrats win all four races this year, that clears a path to restoring majorities on both courts that will protect and defend democratic norms.

Unfortunately, that also means that if we lose all 4 of those races, Justice Allison Riggs will be the only remaining Democrat serving on a North Carolina appellate court at any level. I am a huge fan of Justice Riggs, but even she cannot do this alone!

So, if we want to protect the rule of law and democratic norms, we must elect all 4 judges on the 2026 NC Judicial Slate. Please consider supporting them today if you haven’t already (or again, that’s great too)!

When I was a political candidate, I felt the pressure to stay up-to-date on every issue that might come up on the campaign trail. When I started Carolina Democracy, originally as a weekly podcast, I felt the pressure to stay up-to-date on issues across North Carolina year round.

It came at a cost. I could tell, overtime, that I was burning out. As it turns out, some really ancient folks had some decent ideas I was conveniently ignoring: the Golden Mean.

Share

I can only speak for myself, but life has taught me again and again that moderation is key. Politics is no different. I want to be an informed citizen. I want to help others understand current events. But I am not a policy decision maker who needs constant updates. I am also not a professional politico — commentator, consultant, party official, campaign staffer, etc.

So, I want to stay informed, but not overwhelmed. I used to feel guilty if someone asked, “Did you hear what President Trump said today?” or “Did you hear Secretary Hegseth’s latest gaff?” and I did not know. But the answer was usually some form of the same: something idiotic, probably offensive, or at the very least, ignorant.

The details rarely mattered. Wait a few hours and we could go through the same exercise again. For what? Nothing had actually changed other than my stress level.

I decided to set some boundaries for myself. First, I got back on my bicycle after a near decade hiatus from competitive racing and riding. I replaced hours of news consumption with hours of exercise, outside when possible.

I also started retraining my social media algorithms — engage in fun content, ignore or remove stressful content. It took a while, and it is not perfect, but over time my social media feeds have shifted to cycling, puppies, and babies. Cycling is my thing, I am no Kristi Noem, and my wife and I are expecting twins in August. Personalized content still creeps me out, but at least it’s pleasant now, and mostly apolitical.

Finally, I made deliberate choices about my news consumption. I signed up for the daily headline emails from several national sources — The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. I scroll through all three every morning to see what catches my attention, and for a bit of fun, I compare the contrasting headlines for the same stories.

I do something similar for state and local news — News & Observer, Greensboro News & Record, and Winston-Salem Journal. The N&O is good for state news and politics, like keeping up with the Canes or the latest on being “close” on a state budget. And I live and work in the Triad. I do not need to know every vote the city council is taking. But knowing when downtown will be closed or a tax increase is being debated is helpful.

Share

Let me be clear. I DO NOT read everything, or even try. If there are a lot of interesting articles, all of the above may take me a cup of coffee. Again, moderation. It turns out headlines and the first paragraph or two are often enough to stay informed without being overwhelmed.

And I still indulge in political commentary here and there. I like Thomas Mill’s PoliticsNC, Andrew Dunn’s Longleaf Politics, and Alex Jones’s New Branchhead. They offer a range of views. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes not so much, but I always appreciate their thoughts. And even when we disagree, they force me to think more deeply about my own positions. I value that.

I can only share what has worked for me. I challenge all of you to find what works for you. Whatever you do, take care of yourself. The fight for democracy needs you, but it needs you at your best. It’s all about balance.

Speaking of which, if you need me in July, I will probably be watching the Tour de France. If you need me after that, I will probably be changing diapers. I am still here, but I will also be striving for some balance before things get crazy in September and October.

There is also one more REALLY, REALLY important deadline before all of that. Tomorrow, June 30th, is the last major fundraising deadline for 2026 North Carolina candidates before early voting starts. Please support the 2026 NC Judicial Slate if you haven’t already (or again, that’s great too)!

Many of those deadlines have now passed, but a CRITICAL deadline is next Tuesday, June 30th. That is the end of the 2nd “Quarter” (they’re not true quarters) fundraising deadline for candidates on the ballot this year.1 Ten days later—July 10—is the deadline to file financial disclosures for that period.

This deadline is one of the most important public barometers of a campaign’s health while there’s still time to make a difference, so please support the 2026 NC Judicial Slate!

The two biggest factors driving which campaigns get resources in the coming months will be their polling numbers and the financial health of the campaigns. As we speak, campaigns are conducting polling and raising money. National, state, and local parties, as well as big donors and outside groups, are watching.

Our ability to impact polling, especially if we don’t live in a particular district, is limited. Even if we could, it would be counterproductive — we need accurate polling. But we CAN, and absolutely MUST, boost the financial health of key races.

If you read Carolina Democracy regularly, you already know our pitch. Restoring democracy and democratic norms in North Carolina runs through our state courts. The NC GOP has gerrymandered its way into perpetual majorities in the State House and Senate, even veto-proof supermajorities in many years, severely handicapping the Governor’s ability to be a check on power.

That only leaves our courts to serve as a check on the NC GOP.

Share

If we want to restore democratic norms, uphold the rule of law, and ensure effective checks and balances in our government, we MUST support the state-wide candidates for the North Carolina courts who share that vision.

So please, please support the 2026 NC Judicial Slate in any amount before midnight, June 30th, to ensure these candidates have the resources to prevail in November!

As our good friend and fundraiser extraordinaire Sarah Squire likes to say, we need to dig deep and Squeeze the Cactus! Please share this message, reach out to friends and family, and let’s get every last drop we can to help these incredible candidates succeed in November!

However, Republicans in the N.C. General Assembly appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then overturned the trial court and held that federal courts do not have the power to review partisan gerrymandering claims.

Here’s the short version:

First, a bi-partisan, 3-judge panel in North Carolina concluded that North Carolina’s 2016 Congressional map was unconstitutional because it inverted the fundamental republican principle that voters choose representatives, not the other way around.

That trial court found the map was deliberately drawn to disadvantage a politically identifiable group (Democrats), producing predictable, durable partisan entrenchment (for Republicans) without any legitimate state interest to justify that discrimination.

Next, the case proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, lamented that partisan gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic principles.” However, the majority threw up their hands and claimed they were powerless to do anything about partisan gerrymandering.

In other words, while they said partisan gerrymandering is really bad, policing it is not their job.

Share

Longer version:

In 2019, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions in federal courts.

The Court observed that partisan gerrymandering may be “incompatible with democratic principles,” but held that federal courts cannot adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims because there are no manageable standards to decide when partisan advantage in redistricting becomes unconstitutional.

Instead, the Court said partisan gerrymandering must be addressed by state legislatures or Congress, not the courts.

Ironically, the Court also went out of its way to distinguish partisan gerrymandering from racial gerrymandering. It claimed that racial gerrymandering was still unconstitutional and subject to clear constitutional and statutory standards. As other recent decisions have shown, this was just another Lucy holding the football.

Share

Also notable, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, dissented and argued that extreme gerrymandering violates fundamental democratic principles. She believed that courts have both the authority and responsibility to intervene.

Justice Kagan recognized that gerrymandering entrenches one party in power, distorts representation, and deprives voters of equal influence. She also pointed to several manageable standards for measuring extreme partisan gerrymandering. In reality, using the exact same statistical methods and tools that produce extreme political maps in the first place, it’s actually pretty easy to measure partisan gerrymandering and set limits.

In reality, this is nothing more than a math problem, and the dissenters recognized we need to set limits to protect our democracy and the will of the people. In contrast, the majority said not our job, we don’t do math.

Share

Following the Rucho decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court initially found that extreme partisan gerrymandering violates the North Carolina Constitution. However, after Republicans took the majority on the N.C. Supreme Court, they quickly reversed this and several other important democracy related holdings. But more on that next time!

In the mean time, please don’t forget to support our rockstar Democratic judicial candidates via our 2026 NC Judicial Slate! Electing judge who will protect and defend our basic democratic values is key to all future democratic success in North Carolina!

For now, I’ll just make two observations. First, Louisiana v. Callais is already proving quite damaging to representative democracy. With basically no guardrails left, not a day has passed without a news update in the gerrymandering wars that would have been unthinkable not long ago. We are witnessing a race to the bottom.

Second, I was at least pleasantly surprised to learn that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, racism in the United States is over and no longer something we need to concern ourselves with. I’m relieved. 🙃

Share

Turning back to partisan gerrymandering, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for partisan gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common Cause, which began in North Carolina.

Short Version:

A bi-partisan, 3-judge panel held that the 2016 North Carolina congressional map violated the U.S. Constitution because it was deliberately drawn to disadvantage a politically identifiable group (Democrats). It produced predictable, durable partisan entrenchment (for Republicans) without any legitimate state interest to justify that discrimination. In the court’s view, such maps inverted the fundamental republican principle that voters choose representatives, not the other way around.

Longer Version:

Following North Carolina’s 2016 congressional redistricting, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters challenged the map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. A bipartisan 3-judge panel conducted a full trial and held that the congressional maps violated the First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment), and various provisions of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

The court found that Republican legislative leaders and their consultant, Dr. Thomas Hofeller, intentionally used political data to draw districts that would advantage Republican candidates and preserve a 10–3 Republican congressional delegation. Representative David Lewis infamously said, “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”

This map was prepared largely by Dr. Hofeller before public hearings. Public input was not incorporated, and Democratic committee members lacked access to Dr. Hofeller work product. His maps concentrated Democratic voters into a small number of districts (packing) while creating more Republican-leaning districts (cracking).

Republican leaders did not identify any legitimate democratic, constitutional, or public interest served by the partisan objectives. Instead, they candidly explained that maintaining a Republican advantage was the purpose. Rep. Lewis even stated, “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.” He later co-authored a piece in The Atlantic entitled, “We Drew Congressional Maps for Partisan Advantage. That Was the Point.”

Share

The trial court concluded the 2016 map violated the Constitution under the First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and Article I. They held that intentional, durable partisan entrenchment that subordinates voters’ political choices is unconstitutional.

“The core principle of our republican government is that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”

The court relied on the principle that voters, not legislators, must choose representatives. In other words, partisan line-drawing to entrench a party undermines representative democracy. The court treated the explicit use of partisan election data and the stated goal of maintaining a 10–3 partisan advantage as powerful proof of unconstitutional partisan intent and effect.

Here are a few of the key findings as to specific parts of the U.S. Constitution:

• First Amendment — The court treated extreme partisan line‑drawing as a form of political discrimination that punishes or burdens citizens for their political beliefs and associations. When mapmakers intentionally design districts to penalize supporters of one party and entrench another, they are effectively suppressing political expression and association protected by the First Amendment.

• Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment) — The court held that a map that intentionally and systematically dilutes the electoral power of an identifiable political group violates equal protection because it denies those voters an equal opportunity to translate their votes into representation.

• Article I and structural principles — The court emphasized that the Constitution’s structure presumes voters, not legislators, choose representatives. Maps which invert that principle by predetermining electoral outcomes undermine the republican form of government.

Critically, the trial court reaffirmed the principle that in our representative democracy, voters must be able to pick their representatives, not the other way around.

However, as we’ll discuss in our next post, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Regardless, at least some judges—liberal and conservative—recognize that partisan gerrymandering is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the core democratic principles of our republican form of government.

Subscribe now

p.s. — Don’t forget to support our rockstar Democratic judicial candidates via our 2026 NC Judicial Slate!

Share

What Is Partisan Gerrymandering?

Partisan gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to give one political party an advantage.

Every ten years, after the U.S. census, states redraw congressional and legislative district maps to reflect population changes.1 Ideally, this process—called redistricting—ensures fair representation. But when the party in power controls map-drawing, they can deliberately design districts to tilt elections in their favor. This practice is known as partisan gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering has been around for centuries, but it undermines the principle that voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.

How It Works

Two common tactics define partisan gerrymandering:

• Packing: Concentrating the opposing party’s voters into a few districts, ensuring they win overwhelmingly there but lose influence elsewhere.

• Cracking: Splitting the opposing party’s voters across many districts, diluting their power so they can’t form a majority.

For example, if a state has an even split between Party A and Party B, Party A might redraw maps so that Party B wins only a small fraction of seats despite having nearly half the voters.

Several years ago, The Washington Post ran an article that used the visual below, adapted from a Facebook post later attributed to Stephen Nass. While this is an extremely simplified example, it is also quite useful for demonstrating some basic redistricting terms. You can read the full article here.

In this example, we have 50 people--20 red, 30 blue--and we need to form 5 equal districts. To make the example easier, these people have sorted themselves quite neatly into red and blue groupings. Historically, this rarely happens, although recently it has become more realistic with the rural / urban divide between the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively.

Example 1, called “perfect representation” above, is often called “proportional representation” in real life examples.

Example 2 introduces the terms “compact” and “unfair,” which I explain below, and it results in a clean sweep for blue. This is a partisan gerrymander in favor of blue.

Example 3 is also a partisan gerrymander, but this time for red. It uses both “cracking” and “packing” techniques to create two overwhelmingly blue districts (think Charlotte or Raleigh) and three majority red districts (most everywhere else in North Carolina).

Share

Now for the terms--compact simply means a tightly drawn district. A circle would be a perfectly compact district with all edges equidistant from the center. A square would also be a very compact district. Meanwhile, a long, narrow, twisty district is not at all compact.

“Fair” is more complicated. Some people believe proportional representation for an entire state, or other voting group (city, county, etc.), is fair. However, proportional representation can be achieved through an equal split of districts that are highly gerrymandered and all but guaranteed to result in a Republican and Democratic win. See Example 1 above. While this may result in an equal split of Republican and Democratic representatives, it still leaves the voters with no meaningful choice in the general election.

Others, including Carolina Democracy, believe maximizing competitive districts is the better definition of fair. However, I’ll freely acknowledge the drawback here is that during a wave election, it’s conceivable that a 50-50 state, with all perfectly competitive districts, could result in a single party taking all of the seats. Certainly not ideal, but staggered terms for representatives can help lessen the impact of wave elections (think U.S. Senate or state courts).

The reality is that drawing perfectly proportional or perfectly competitive districts is nearly impossible given the random distribution of where people live and fluctuating preferences between political parties. Some urban districts will be Democratic, and some rural districts Republican, no matter how you draw them in North Carolina.

However, 2022 showed us that we can have both proportional representation and at least some competitive districts. Under the maps used in 2022, North Carolina sent 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats to the U.S. House. Many districts were foregone conclusions by the general election, but several were at least somewhat competitive.

By 2024, North Carolina reverted to a severely gerrymandered map, resulting in a 10-4 Republican/Democratic delegation. In 2026, with an even further gerrymandered map, Republicans hope to push the North Carolina delegation to 11-3 Republican/Democratic.2 Only one district is even remotely close to competitive, and the other 13 are all but decided.

Why It Matters

Partisan gerrymandering distorts democracy in several ways:

• Unfair representation: Legislatures may not reflect the actual political makeup of the population.

• Reduced accountability: Safe districts discourage competition, allowing incumbents to ignore voter concerns.

• Polarization: Politicians in gerrymandered districts often cater to extreme bases rather than moderates, deepening divides.

Legal and Political Debate

The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly rejected partisan gerrymandering claims under the U.S. Constitution. Next week we will review that case which originated out of North Carolina. Then we will look at the recent North Carolina Supreme Court decisions first barring, and then flipping to allow, partisan gerrymandering under the North Carolina Constitution. Stay tuned!

Share

p.s. — Don’t forget to support our rockstar Democratic judicial candidates via our 2026 NC Judicial Slate!

Now that we’re through the primary, here’s the full 2026 NC Judicial Slate:

• Supreme Court:

  • Justice Anita Earls

• Court of Appeals:

  • Judge John Arrowood

  • Judge Toby Hampson

  • Judge Christine Walczyk

I also want to recognize the efforts of James Whalen who also ran for the N.C. Court of Appeals in the primary. Mr. Whalen ran an impressive campaign which he and his team can be proud of, and I look forward to seeing him on the ballot in the future.

Share

As a refresher, North Carolina will have four state-wide judicial races in 2026: one seat for the North Carolina Supreme Court and three seats for the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Republicans currently hold a majority on both of these courts. We have to play the long game, but we can restore Democratic majorities on both courts.

For the Supreme Court, it started with re-electing Justice Allison Riggs in 2024. In 2026, we must re-elect Justice Anita Earls. In 2028, we must flip at least two of the three Republican-held seats that will be on the ballot. If we flip all three, that takes Democrats to a 5-2 majority.

For the North Carolina Court of Appeals, we need to hold all three Democratic-held seats in 2026. In 2028, we need to flip all five seats that will be on the ballot. It’s a tall order, but we can do it. That would get us to a 8-7 Democratic majority on the Court of Appeals.

Share

Again, please support our rockstar Democratic judicial candidates: 2026 NC Judicial Slate.

p.s. — if you’re in the Triad and want to come out to support Justice Earls, I’ll be co-hosting a fundraising reception for her on April 25th at 4:30 with some awesome fellow hosts. It promises to be a great event — RSVP Here!

Share

Since there are judicial candidates on the primary ballot at every level except for the North Carolina Supreme Court--and the Supreme Court seat will be on the ballot in November--I thought we could start with a quick primer on the structure of the North Carolina state courts.

The North Carolina judicial branch is a creature of our state constitution, much like the federal judiciary is a creature of the U.S. Constitution. Article IV of the N.C. Constitution governs the state courts, terms of office, qualifications, and so forth. It’s a pretty short read if you’re curious: https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Constitution/Article4.

The N.C. Constitution creates four different courts within the General Court of Justice, the official name for the North Carolina unified court system which came to exist in 1966. I’ll spare you the details today, but before the unified court system, North Carolina had a patchwork of local court systems that frequently created inconsistent rulings and countless headaches for lawyers and the public alike. Some called it the “crazy quilt” era. Decades of activism eventually led to a constitutional amendment and our current court system.

Share

Today, the state constitution creates four courts, two appellate courts and two trial courts. These include the District Court and the Superior Court, both trial courts, as well as the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, both appellate courts.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the state’s highest court and is the final court for all disputes arising under state law. In some limited instances, cases may be appealed from the state Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court, but these usually involve federal matters or the U.S. Constitution.

The state Supreme Court has seven justices -- a Chief Justice and six associate justices. All justices are elected to eight-year terms. They hear and decide cases together which have been appealed from lower courts, usually the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court does not have a jury. Instead, it considers only questions of law. In other words, it resolves disputes over the correct interpretation and application of the law. It does not make factual decisions, and instead generally relies on the factual decisions from the lower courts.

Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals is an intermediate appellate court that hears the vast majority of appeals from the trial courts. As an appellate court, it generally relies on the factual decisions from the trial courts and focuses on the correct interpretation and application of the law.

The Court of Appeals has 15 judges who sit in panels of 3 judges, randomly assigned for each case, to hear and decide those cases. One of the judges also serves as the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, mostly for administrative purposes, and that position is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Judges on the Court of Appeals are elected to eight-year terms.

Very few cases are accepted for consideration at the Supreme Court, so as a practical matter, the Court of Appeals is also usually the last court to hear and decide legal questions related to state law matters in North Carolina.

Share

Superior Court

Superior Courts are trial courts which handle cases from the filing of a complaint or indictment through the entry of a judgment and sentencing. This includes overseeing the discovery process in early litigation, deciding certain legal issues early in a case to narrow the issues for a jury, empaneling a jury to hear the case to determine the facts, and then as necessary, applying those facts to reach a judgment.

The Superior Court hears cases involving felony crimes, civil cases involving $25,000 or more, and appeals from the District Court. Superior Court judges are elected to eight-year terms.

District Court

Like the Superior Courts, District Courts handle certain cases from start to finish, including jury trials to determine the facts of a case. District Courts handle misdemeanor cases and civil cases involving between $10,000 - $25,000.

District Courts handle most family law matters, including divorce and child custody proceedings. District Court judges are elected to four-year terms.

Share

Reminder!

In North Carolina, there are five names to watch for state-wide judicial races:

• Supreme Court:

  • Justice Anita Earls

• Court of Appeals:

  • Judge John Arrowood

  • Judge Toby Hampson

  • Open Seat -- Primary Candidates: Christine Walczyk and James Whalen

Until next week’s primary is complete, we have included Justice Earls and Judges Arrowood and Hampson in our 2026 NC Judicial Slate. Next week, we’ll add the winner of the primary contest for the open seat to the slate. Please consider supporting these deserving candidates. Every contribution helps, no matter the size!

Kidding aside, this year is undeniably off to a rough start. In challenging times like these, I look to the Serenity Prayer:

Standing alone, our impact is limited. But together, we can make a difference. One of the most impactful places we can affect change is our courts.

Share

At the federal level, our judges enjoy lifetime appointments. Even the most ardent conservatives are pushing back against the excesses coming from the current administration. And when vacancies need to be filled, the U.S. Senate must approve the administration’s nominees.

In North Carolina, we have a competitive Senate seat on the ballot. Former Governor and long-time Attorney General Roy Cooper is the presumptive Democratic nominee. If you want to have an impact on the future of our federal courts, then support Roy Cooper.

Even if Democrats do not flip the U.S. Senate, a Democratic Senator from North Carolina will have the power to moderate judicial nominees and block the nomination of extremists to the federal courts in North Carolina for years to come. If Democrats do flip the U.S. Senate, they will have enormous influence over the future of all federal courts.

Share

At the state level, we elect our judges in North Carolina. And this year, we have four state-wide judicial races on the ballot. Our absolute top priority must be re-electing N.C. Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls. Please support Justice Earls’ re-election campaign here. Protecting our democracy, its institutions, and the rule of law requires flipping the N.C. Supreme Court back to a Democratic majority.

Flipping our state supreme court is a long game. We needed to keep Justice Riggs in 2024. Next, we need to re-elect Justice Earls in 2026. Finally, we need to flip 2 of the 3 seats that will be up for election in 2028. Especially in the current political climate, this is absolutely achievable. But it requires investment and resources today. Again, please support Justice Earls’ re-election campaign.

Share

We also have several state-wide judicial races on the ballots as well. Please support the 2026 NC Judicial Slate of North Carolina Democratic judicial candidates! No matter the amount, every donation helps protect our courts.

BLUF: December 31st is a critical deadline. Please support the 2026 NC Judicial Slate before midnight tomorrow. Every contribution helps, no matter the size!

Let’s start with a word on fundraising clickbait. Unless the candidate is Kristi Noem, don’t believe catastrophic warnings like “Puppies will die if we don’t meet our Friday the 13th fundraising goal by midnight tonight!”

Make no mistake—every day is critical in a campaign. I don’t fault candidates using whatever reasonable tactics work. Given the chance, I’d probably use a Friday the 13th fake deadline to catch attention if I was running, too (although not the puppy part, to be clear). But let’s walk through the deadlines that actually matter.

The only no-kidding, catastrophic deadline is the candidate filing deadline. Miss that and you have no campaign. That’s already passed in North Carolina. But even then, candidates can file a petition to run as an unaffiliated candidate, and that deadline is April 6, 2026. If you want to learn more, click here.

Share

For fundraising, here are the four critical dates remaining in the 2026 election cycle in North Carolina:

• December 31, 2025

• February 14, 2026

• June 30, 2026

• October 17, 2026

These four dates are the end of the reporting periods. Contributions must be made by midnight to be on the next public disclosure, usually 10 days later. A contribution made at 11:00 pm on June 30th will be publicly reported on July 10th. However, a contribution made two hours later will not be reported until October 27th.

These four dates are critical for showing the strength and health of a campaign. The earlier a campaign raises money, the better. Not only do campaigns need money to spend money (credit is not common for campaigns), but early support drives more support.

Share

Certain groups and big donors spend a lot of time reviewing these financial disclosure reports. Generally, they’re looking at (1) the amount raised, (2) the amount spent, (3) the number of donors, and (4) any notable donors supporting the campaign.

The amount raised is a proxy for the seriousness of a campaign. It’s not perfect, but as a general rule, serious candidates with decent odds in the election raise more money.

The amount spent goes more to the health of the campaign. Is the campaign raising substantially more than it’s spending, or is money going out the door as quickly as it’s coming in? In other words, what is the campaign’s “burn rate”?

What really matters is Cash on Hand = Amount Raised - Amount Spent. The more Cash on Hand, the more available to pay staff, organize field efforts, send mail, run digital ads, and if the campaign is big enough, buy TV ad time.

The number of contributions matters, too. Popular campaigns tend to raise a large volume of low-dollar contributions. Campaigns are a unique kind of popularity contest, and few metrics serve as a better proxy for popularity than number of supporters. This is why every contribution matters, regardless of size!

Finally, savvy politicos look at who is supporting campaigns. Here’s an easy example on the Republican side. In a GOP primary, a MAGA campaign will almost certainly notice if a prominent Never-Trumper like Bill Kristol shows up on the financial disclosures of an opponent. That might even be the subject of a mailer or ad!

So what’s the takeaway? Every contribution matters—whether $5 or $5,000—and contributing early has an amplifying effect. $5 today is a heck of a lot more valuable than $5 next October.

With that explanation, I hope you’ll consider supporting the 2026 NC Judicial Slate in any amount before midnight, December 31st!

p.s. -- for those who want more, here’s an example from 2020. This financial information feeds the machine that decides which candidates get more financial support as the cycle progresses. Early success lays the foundation for what can turn into exponential growth later.

Here are some disclosure numbers from the 2020 North Carolina state senate campaign that came the closest to flipping a Republican-held seat. These show the report close-out date, the cumulative amount raised by that date, and the number of unique contributions for that respective reporting period.

• 12/31/2019: $32,725.74 (88)

• 2/15/2020: $41,733.94 (106)

• 6/30/2020: $150,507.92 (1,262)

• 10/17/2020: $1,624,878.20 (25,579)

• 12/31/2020: $2,317,087.78 (21,459)

This candidate didn’t raise much in 2019, and didn’t exactly kick off 2020 with an epic bang either. However, they got to work in the spring (ironic given COVID, but evidently WFH worked), and then saw tremendous growth in the final run-up to the election. A decent chunk of the total raised was support from the state party near the end, but that money would have never come if the earlier money wasn’t raised.

Bottom line — early money is critical for a successful campaign, and the “quarterly” fundraising close-out dates really do matter.

BLUF: Please support this slate of rockstar candidates: 2026 NC Judicial Slate.

Share

There are great candidates up and down the ballot, but as promised, we’re focusing on the North Carolina courts for 2026. North Carolina will have four state-wide judicial races in 2026. There is one seat on the ballot for the North Carolina Supreme Court, and there are three seats on the ballot for the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

As of now, Republicans hold a majority on both of these courts. On the Supreme Court, Republicans hold a 5-2 majority. On the Court of Appeals, Republicans hold a 12-3 majority. It’s a long game, but here’s the plan for restoring Democratic majorities on both courts.

For the Supreme Court, it started with re-electing Justice Allison Riggs in 2024. We’ll look back at that election--and the insane post-election legal drama--in the coming months. In 2026, we must re-elect Justice Anita Earls. And in 2028, we must flip at least two of the three Republican-held seats that will be on the ballot. If we flip all three, that takes Democrats to a 5-2 majority.

For the North Carolina Court of Appeals, we need to hold all three Democratic-held seats in 2026. That means re-electing Judges John Arrowood and Toby Hampson and holding the open seat currently held by Democrat Allegra Collins. Then, in 2028, we need to flip all five seats that will be on the ballot. That gets us to a 8-7 Democratic majority on the Court of Appeals.

Share

Make no mistake, it’s a tall order. But we can do it. Justice Riggs won a nail-biter of an election in the same year President Trump won the state by 3 points. There is a path to victory with smart campaigns focused on the right issues. But they’ll also need all the support we can muster.

So, who are we going to see on the 2026 North Carolina ballot? In short, these are the five names to watch:

• Supreme Court:

  • Justice Anita Earls (incumbent)

• Court of Appeals:

  • Judge John Arrowood (incumbent)

  • Judge Toby Hampson (incumbent)

  • Primary Candidates (Open Seat): Christine Walczyk and James Whalen

Which means here’s your 2026 NC Judicial Slate! We’ll add the winner of the primary between Christine Walczyk and James Whalen to the slate in March.

Share

Here are some more details on the races. The Supreme Court seat will see two candidates head to the general election: Justice Anita Earls, Democrat, running for re-election; and Representative Sarah Stevens, Republican, looking to make the jump from the state house to the Supreme Court.

For the Court of Appeals, there will be three seats on the ballot. Judges John Arrowood and Toby Hampson are up for re-election and have no primary challengers. Judge Arrowood will face the winner of a Republican primary, and Judge Hampson will face Republican George Bell.

The third seat on the ballot is currently held by Democrat Allegra Collins who is not running for re-election. Democrats Christine Walczyk and James Whalen will head to a primary, and the winner will face Republican Craig Collins.

At least for now, we have made the decision to support the three incumbent, state-wide judicial candidates running for re-election through the 2026 NC Judicial Slate as they do not face a primary. And of course, we will add the winner of the Democratic primary for the third Court of Appeals seat to the slate in March.

Again, please support our rockstar Democratic judicial candidates: 2026 NC Judicial Slate.

Share

Bottom Line Up Front: Please support Justice Anita Earls in her re-election campaign. I explain why below, but if you want to just trust me, here’s a donation link. Donate like democracy depends on it, because, well, it does!

Now onward with our content. When I first started the Carolina Democracy effort, I wasn’t quite sure what it would look like. But I knew I wanted two things: (1) to help down-ballot candidates get their message out; and (2) to connect those candidates with this community.

That led to starting the podcast in 2022. I had a great time, interviewed dozens of candidates, and overall it was a tremendous success. I continued the podcast in 2023 and 2024—thank you all for the continued support at every turn—but the political landscape of North Carolina was shifting under us.

Share

As you may recall, in early 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court did something amazing. In a 4-3 decision, they found extreme partisan gerrymandering violates the state constitution. Later that year, they reaffirmed that ruling. At least for a while, 2022 was shaping up as an excellent year.

Unfortunately, that didn’t hold. With rare exception, the party that wins the White House usually struggles the following midterms. North Carolina was no different. We had some successes, no doubt. We ended up with an even 7-7 split in our Congressional delegation after all.

But we lost the U.S. Senate race, narrowly prevented a Republican supermajority in the state house, and ended up with a Republican supermajority in the state senate. In reality, some of those N.C. House Democrats were unreliable in tough votes, so it was a functional Republican supermajority anyways. Still worse, we lost every single state-wide judicial race, including two critical seats on the N.C. Supreme Court held by Democrats.

The Supreme Court flipped from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority. It did not take long for the new Chief Justice to begin dramatic changes across our state courts. That’s a topic for another day.

One of the new majority’s first tasks was to break with long-standing precedent by reopening an already decided and settled case. They reversed the two gerrymandering decisions from the previous year. Then, the General Assembly quickly adopted even more gerrymandered maps than they were already using, giving Republicans a stark advantage for years to come.

I’ll save gerrymandering for a future post, but for now, just know that the Supreme Court’s unprecedented reversal on extreme partisan gerrymandering fundamentally altered the political landscape for at least the rest of this decade.

Share

I’m going to shoot straight with you. Democrats can prevent a supermajority in the State House under the new maps. Democrats may also break the supermajority in the State Senate in a good year. My 2020 BFF even admitted as much. But Democrats have essentially zero chance of taking a majority in either chamber under current maps any time in the foreseeable future.

For our legislative elections to be anything other than a foregone conclusion, we need to elect judges who recognize that our state constitution does not permit gerrymandering. Given Democratic and Republican positions on gerrymandering, this means electing Democratic judges. It should not be a partisan issue, but it is.

There is a path to flipping a 5-2 Republican majority to a 4-3 Democratic majority on the N.C. Supreme Court. It started with re-electing Justice Allison Riggs in 2024. In 2026, we must re-elect Justice Anita Earls. And in 2028, we must flip two of the three Supreme Court seats on the ballot.

Share

For 2026, I’m shifting our focus to providing information and insights about our courts and legal decisions impacting democracy. I’m also converting to a newsletter format. And of course, I’ll be helping our state-wide Democratic judicial candidates raise the money they need to win. I also look forward to launching our 2026 Judicial Slate as soon as candidate filing closes!

While social media accounts may not suggest it (sorry, I’m no Jeff Jackson), there are tens of thousands of you in our Carolina Democracy community. Together, we can make a difference in this fight for more democratic state courts in North Carolina.

In the meantime, the end of the year is quickly approaching, and we know that Justice Earls will need to raise millions of dollars to hold her seat. Even a few bucks today goes a long way to helping her in November 2026. Please support Justice Earls’s 2026 re-election campaign by contributing here!

Share

Justice Riggs sent out the email below yesterday. As part of the Carolina Democracy community, you know how much we care about the judicial races.

She asked all of us to “take a minute to show your support for our campaign and remind your friends and family to cast their ballot!” Easy enough! We’re forwarding her email and posting the pictures below on our social media.

Will you do the same? We’ll even make it easier for you—just hit the “Share” button below.

Share

Just 5 days left until Election Day 2024, we’ve got this. If you haven’t voted or know someone who hasn’t voted, there are links below to help. There’s also a reminder about our fundraising efforts to help our state-wide judicial candidates.

Remember, the most effective voter turnout strategy is encouraging your friends and family to vote! Text, call, email, whatever it takes!

Best,

JD

Share

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Justice Allison Riggs
Date: Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 4:45 PM
Subject: Something nice to share
To: JD Wooten <jd@carolinademocracy.com>

Hi JD,

By now you’ve early voted, but over half of registered North Carolinians still have not made their voices heard in this election! 

Today, I’m asking you to share an early voting reminder with your network on social media. Please take a minute to show your support for our campaign and remind your friends and family to cast their ballot!

If you’re not on social media, please forward this email or text your friends and remind them to cast their ballot for judges and justices who share our values!

With gratitude,

Justice Allison Riggs 

Share

P.S - here are several links to help you prepare for the General Election in North Carolina this year:

• General NC Voting Information

• NC Voter ID Information

• NC Vote by Mail Information

• NC In-Person Early Voting Information

P.P.S. - it's not too late to support the pro-democracy, state-wide North Carolina judicial candidates via ActBlue.

Share

Share

Over 2.8 million of North Carolina’s 7.8 million registered voters have voted. That’s great, but the work isn’t over. With just one week left, I thought I’d share some thoughts on two of the major “debates” that will rage right up until Election Day when it comes to voter turnout.

First, a lot of people like to group voters as “persuasion” voters or “turnout” voters. A persuasion voter is someone who will likely vote, but is undecided on their preferred candidate. A turnout voter is someone who may or may not vote on their own, but will definitely vote for a particular candidate if they do vote. There’s some benefit to these distinctions for campaigns, but most of us are not making decisions on target audiences for campaign mailers, digital ads, phone banking, canvasing, and the like.

Instead, consider everyone a persuasion voter. We either need to persuade them to vote, who to support, or perhaps both. Regardless, we need to persuade them their vote matters and persuade them which candidate will make their life better.

Share

Second, for messages, let’s look to the Harris-Trump race. Of all the messages you could land on, I suggest some combination of the following three, depending on your audience: 1) Harris is better for the economy, 2) Trump is a fascist, and/or 3) abortion rights. Don’t believe me? Check out the Harris team’s final major ad:

It doesn’t touch on abortion rights, but that’s been a major issue for countless voters ever since the Dobbs decision overturned the half-century of precedent of Roe and took away a fundamental freedom for the first time in the nation’s history.

Try watching the ad on mute. What do you see? “Project 2025.” “Deny coverage.” “Cut Social Security and Medicare.” “Tax Cuts for Billionaires.” “Lower Income, Higher Costs.” “You pay the price.” Now go back and listen to the voice over. They add in “while the middle class pays the price with lower income and higher costs.” I’d say they hit the economic message hard.

How about fascism? I shy away from that word in conversations not because it’s inaccurate, but because a lot of people aren’t sure what it means or their eyes gloss over like they’re back in a social studies classroom. Instead, focus on the outcomes like this ad does. “It’s all about getting unchecked power while you pay the price.” “Donald Trump: more Unhinged, Unstable, and Unchecked.” Don’t waste time explaining how fascism uses the levers of government for personal gain while suppressing individual liberties, opposition, and dissent. Instead keep it tied to the economic message.

Share

There are countless other arguments, and maybe you find that something else works for a particular person or group. That’s great too. Whatever you do, just remember — the single most effective voter turnout strategy is encouragement from family and friends to go vote. And that’s on each and every one of us!

Oh, and of course here are several links to help you prepare for the General Election in North Carolina this year:

• Check Your NC Voter Registration

• General NC Voting Information

• NC Voter ID Information

• NC Vote by Mail Information

• NC In-Person Early Voting Information

And don’t forget, you can still help these pro-democracy, state-wide North Carolina judicial candidates via ActBlue. These candidates need our support right up until Election Day!

The slate, pictured above from left to right, includes all four state-wide Democratic judicial candidates:

• Judge Carolyn Thompson, North Carolina Court of Appeals; 

• Justice Allison Riggs, North Carolina Supreme Court; 

• Ed Eldred, North Carolina Court of Appeals; and

• Martin Moore, North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Support the 2024 NC Judicial Slate Here!

Share