Candidate for NC Supreme Court, Democrat Allison Riggs, answers our questions

To help inform voters across the state, this candidate questionnaire is available to be republished by local publications in North Carolina without any cost. Please consider subscribing to The News & Observer to help make this coverage possible.

Name: Allison Riggs

Political party: Democrat

Age as of March 5, 2024: 42

Campaign website: https://www.riggsforourcourts.com/

Current occupation: NC Supreme Court Associate Justice

Professional experience: 2009–2014, Staff Attorney, Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ), Durham, NC. 2014–2019, Senior Staff Attorney, SCSJ, Durham, NC. 2019–2020, Chief Counsel for Voting Rights, SCSJ, Durham, NC. 2020-2021, Interim Co-Executive Director – Programs, SCSJ Durham, NC. 2021–2022, Co-Executive Director – Programs, SCSJ Durham, NC. 2023–2023, Judge, NC Court of Appeals, Raleigh, NC. 2023–present, Associate Justice, NC Supreme Court, Raleigh, NC.

Education: 2003, B.S., University of Florida (Microbiology); 2006, M.A, University of Florida (in History); 2009, J.D., University of Florida Levin College of Law.

What areas of the law do you have experience in, as a judge or attorney?

Civil litigation, appellate, government/public interest and labor/employment.

What is your judicial philosophy?

I prefer a judicial methodology, as opposed to philosophy, in thinking about how I approach cases. Judicial philosophies seem to me to just be code for a judge’s political leanings. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has described her judicial methodology. I found her explanation compelling and have been intentional in applying this in my own judicial work. By focusing on process, rather than “brand,” I believe I am best complying with my constitutional duty to rule without fear or favor.

Tell us about a specific event in your legal career of which you are most proud.

My first argument in front of the United States Supreme Court was a highlight of my legal career. Beyond the obvious reason — most attorneys aspire to argue in front of the highest court in the country, but relatively few achieve that accomplishment — that argument was professionally meaningful to me because my client, the Texas NAACP, had so strongly supported me in being the attorney to make that argument and because so many of my clients and democracy partners were with me in the courtroom.

Do you think the judicial branch has become more politicized? How do you approach legal issues that have strong partisan divides?

I agree with Justice Earls’ dissent in the Harper v. Hall rehearing order explaining that “even if judges have ideological preferences and methodological differences ... partisan loyalties [should] fade away after investiture to reveal a judiciary of men and women bound together by collegiality norms and the rule of law” (from a 2021 law journal article by Neal Devins & Allison Orr Larsen). My commitment to methodology over philosophy allows me to disengage partisan divides from my judicial role.

To what extent should judges be allowed to share their thoughts on political issues in public?

Judges have speech rights protected by the First Amendment, and I believe those rights are broad. Those rights, of course, must be balanced against the Code of Judicial Conduct and my constitutional obligation to rule without fear or favor afforded to any party appearing before me.

Do you agree with the legislature’s decision to remove the State Bar members from the Judicial Standards Commission and replace them with legislative appointees? Why or why not?

I value having a balanced Judicial Standards Commission that represents multiple viewpoints. The disciplining of judicial officers is a serious matter, and I believe it needs to be conducted in an open, transparent, and accountable manner.