How to Read This

Colors reflect constitutional accountability based on publicly verifiable conduct. They are not endorsements or predictions of election outcomes. Judicial candidates are evaluated on Rule of Law and Election Integrity only; Use of Force is not applicable because judicial officers do not exercise coercive authority. Ratings are based on the severity, pattern, and context of conduct — not numerical averaging. A single serious breach is sufficient for a Red rating.

Green — Clear constitutional compliance / restraint
Amber — Mixed, limited, or under-articulated record
Red — Clear or repeated constitutional breach
N/A — Not applicable to this office

Office-Specific Application

Judicial candidates are evaluated based on the powers of the office they seek. Use of Force is not applicable to judicial candidates, as judicial officers do not exercise coercive enforcement authority. This avoids penalizing candidates for powers they do not possess. The evaluation focuses exclusively on Rule of Law / Oversight and Election Integrity — the two categories where NC Supreme Court justices exercise direct institutional power.

Supreme Court Scorecard — At a Glance

Candidate Use of Force Rule of Law Election Integrity
Anita Earls (D, incumbent) N/A²
Sarah Stevens (R) N/A²

² Use of Force — N/A: Judicial candidates do not exercise coercive enforcement authority. Use of Force is therefore not applicable to this contest and is not scored. This reflects office scope, not performance.

Candidate Assessments

Justice Anita Earls
Democratic Incumbent  ·  NC Supreme Court
Use of Force: N/A Rule of Law: Green Election Integrity: Green

1. Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

What the Record Shows
  • Dissented in Stein v. Berger to oppose legislative efforts to strip executive authority over election boards — defending the separation of powers on the record.
  • Consistently upheld judicial hierarchy and separation of powers in her written opinions and dissents.
  • Publicly framed dissents around constitutional accountability and institutional restraint, providing a clear written record of her judicial philosophy.
Why Green

Clear, on-record defense of checks and balances and judicial independence. The record demonstrates affirmative constitutional framing in moments of institutional stress.

2. Election Integrity — Green

What the Record Shows
  • Opposed efforts to discard tens of thousands of lawful ballots in Griffin v. NC State Bd. of Elections.
  • Dissented where the Court signaled openness to vote nullification, creating a written record of opposition to post-election ballot disqualification.
  • Argued that legally cast ballots must be counted to preserve democratic legitimacy, citing constitutional principles of equal protection and voter rights.
Why Green

Affirmative defense of certified results and lawful voter participation, demonstrated through on-record judicial opinions and dissents at moments of constitutional significance.

Note: Judicial office does not exercise coercive enforcement authority. Use of Force is not applicable.
Sarah Stevens
Republican Challenger  ·  NC House Representative
Use of Force: N/A Rule of Law: Red Election Integrity: Red

1. Rule of Law / Oversight — Red

What the Record Shows
  • Supported legislation, including SB 382, that restructures election administration by transferring authority away from the executive branch and concentrating control within the legislature.
  • Endorsed statutory changes that weaken established checks and balances over election governance.
  • Supported institutional frameworks that reduce independent oversight of election administration and judicial accountability.
Why Red

The record reflects a repeated pattern of support for structural changes that consolidate governmental power and diminish separation-of-powers protections. These actions elevate constitutional risk by weakening institutional constraints designed to prevent partisan capture of election administration. The rating is based on documented legislative and institutional outcomes — not political affiliation, campaign rhetoric, or personal associations.

2. Election Integrity — Red

What the Record Shows
  • Structural integrity: Supported partisan gerrymandering and statutory restructuring of election boards that concentrates partisan control over election administration.
  • Ethical compliance: Campaign finance violations were formally identified by the North Carolina State Board of Elections; warnings were issued and improperly received funds were returned.
Why Red

The combination of structural actions that weaken neutral election administration and documented ethical noncompliance in campaign finance creates elevated risk to election legitimacy and public trust. The rating reflects institutional impact and adjudicated findings — not partisan affiliation or isolated procedural errors.

Note: Judicial office does not exercise coercive enforcement authority. Use of Force is not applicable.

Sources

Justice Anita Earls

  1. Supreme Court of North Carolina (2025). Jefferson Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections.
  2. Supreme Court of North Carolina (2022). Order Certification.
  3. Supreme Court of North Carolina (2025). Earls, J., concurring in part in the result only, dissenting in part — Jefferson Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections.
  4. Supreme Court of North Carolina (2025). Joshua H. Stein v. Philip E. Berger.
  5. The 19th News (2023). North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls and the power of dissent.
  6. FlipNC (2024). Our Interview with Justice Anita Earls, Part 1.

Sarah Stevens

  1. Legiscan (2024). North Carolina Senate Bill 382 — Roll Call.
  2. Democracy NC. Senate Bill 382.
  3. WUNC News (2025). NC House wants to give elections board leader the power to replace staff.
  4. The News & Observer (2023). Republicans release new NC maps for 2024 likely to expand GOP power in Congress.
  5. NC Newsline (2025). Lobbyist's $6,800 donation to Rep. Sarah Stevens' Supreme Court campaign likely violates state law.
  6. Yahoo News (2026). NC Board of Elections finds Stevens campaign contributions illegal, but not intentional.
  7. NC General Assembly. § 163-278.13C — Campaign contributions prohibition.
  8. NC Voices (2025). NC Democrats Raise Alarms About Sarah Stevens' Alliance with Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby.
  9. The News & Observer (2025). NC Supreme Court race 'can't be a campaign about issues.' What to expect instead.
  10. The Assembly (2025). Supreme Politics.
  11. NC Democratic Party (2025). The threat to Democracy in North Carolina: Sarah Stevens' Troubling Alliance with Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby.