Fayetteville Observer Voter Guide 2022: Meet the candidates for North Carolina Court of Appeals

Four North Carolina Appeals Court seats are up for reelection in the November election, including one open seat. Julee Tate Flood, a Republican, faces Democrat Carolyn Jennings Thompson for seat 8. Incumbent Chief Judge Donna Stroud, a Republican, faces a challenge from Brad A. Salmon, a Democrat, for seat 9. Incumbent Judge John M. Tyson, a Republican, faces a challenge from Democrat Gale Murray Adams for seat 10. Incumbent Judge Darren Jackson, a Democrat, faces a challenge from Republican Michael J. Stading for seat 11.

Judges on the Appeals Court serve eight-year terms.

Cumberland County voters will vote for one candidate in each of the four races.

Below are the candidates' responses to a Fayetteville Observer questionnaire. Responses have been edited for style and grammar.

Seat 8

Julee Tate Flood

Name: Julee Tate Flood

Age: 61

Immediate family: Spouse, Timothy, and sons, Matthew, Benjamin, Joshua and Luke

Occupation: Attorney, NC Court of Appeals; advisory partner, business

Elected office held: None

Contact: info@juleeflood.com; juleeflood.com; Facebook, Julee Flood for Judge NC Court of Appeals; Twitter, @juleeforjudge; Instagram: @juleeforjudge

What is your judicial philosophy? Having drafted hundreds of appellate judicial opinions, I am a textualist. Adherence to textualism means that I believe the law says what it says and means what it says — and does not mean what it does not say. I interpret constitutions and statutes in the same way, by the ordinary meaning of text. I interpret United States and North Carolina Constitutions based on original language, striving to discern the original, ordinary meaning of the text based on how the words the drafters used would have been used and understood by a reasonable person at the time.

When analyzing cases, I am rigorous in discerning fine, technical distinctions. I adhere to stare decisis—the doctrine of honoring precedent — whereby precedent should be rarely overturned, only when significantly flawed and causing harm.

I respect Madisonian principles of the separation of powers and believe the role of a judge is to decide cases based on the facts and the law. I oppose judicial activism whereby a black-robed, quasi-legislator would use the law to advance a political agenda. And I believe that each case, for the people involved, is the most important case. To each person, I offer the dignity and respect they deserve.

My judicial philosophy furthers predictability and stability in the law. It aligns with the North Carolina Judicial Branch Mission and Goals whereby judges are to “protect and preserve the rights and liberties of all the people as guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and North Carolina[.]”

Some state and federal Supreme Court justices have said if an issue involves a “political question,” the courts must not hear the case or issue a ruling in favor of the person asserting that the legislative or executive branches have violated their constitutional rights. What are your thoughts on that practice? Opinions by state and federal appellate courts speak for themselves. As an error correcting and intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeals is bound to follow controlling precedents until overturned. Our trial courts’ orders and judgments are presumed to be correct, and an appellant has the burden to show a case or controversy should be heard by a court. Because issues related to a “political question” could arise in state courts, I am prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct — as an employee of the Court of Appeals working in judicial chambers and as a judicial candidate — from sharing my thoughts on or projecting how a court might view the issues before it. A court may address issues only in the context of a case, including the specific, unique facts, issues, and legal arguments brought before the court.

Critics say partisan judicial primaries and partisan judicial elections are making candidates more beholden to Democratic and Republican politics than to the rule of law. What are your thoughts of having nonpartisan elections — with all candidates vs. all candidates, with party labels — as some states do in an effort to ascertain the will of all the people and not just the shrinking number of voters who identify with the major political parties? As a general principle, I believe that voters who have access to full information will make well-informed choices as to their legislative representation. Reflecting the will of the people through the North Carolina Legislature, which has exclusive purview to establish election laws, North Carolina jurists are chosen through partisan elections. Based on my respect for the separation of powers, opposition to judicial activism through comment or case law, and steadfast belief that the role of a judge is to decide cases only based on the facts and the law brought before the court, I decline to comment on what I think about legislatively-determined election laws.

Carolyn Jennings Thompson

Name: Carolyn Jennings Thompson

Age: 54

Immediate family: My husband, John, and I have a blended family of five adult children and four beautiful grandchildren.

Occupation: Attorney at law

Elected office held: District Court judge for 9th Judicial District from 2009-2018; and Superior Court judge for 9th Judicial District from 2018-2019.

Contact: info@carolynthompsonforjudge.com; CarolynThompsonforJudge.com; facebook.com/cthompsonjudge; twitter.com/cthompsonjudge

What is your judicial philosophy? I believe I can make a difference in the service of equal justice as required by our laws and constitution. True justice is independent of party affiliation, divisive ideologies, and social differences. I have taken and believe in the oath to uphold our laws and constitution consistently. As the next Court of Appeals judge for all North Carolinians, I am committed to serving with integrity, fairness, and impartiality.

Some state and federal Supreme Court justices have said if an issue involves a “political question,” the courts must not hear the case or issue a ruling in favor of the person asserting that the legislative or executive branches have violated their constitutional rights. What are your thoughts on that practice? As a candidate for the NC Court of Appeals, I am not permitted to discuss any potential issue that may come before the court. It would be inappropriate for me to state a position about a policy, practice or otherwise with legislative forecasts or implications.

Critics say partisan judicial primaries and partisan judicial elections are making candidates more beholden to Democratic and Republican politics than to the rule of law. What are your thoughts of having nonpartisan elections — with all candidates vs. all candidates, with party labels — as some states do in an effort to ascertain the will of all the people and not just the shrinking number of voters who identify with the major political parties? As a candidate for the NC Court of Appeals, I am not permitted to discuss any potential issue that may come before the court. It would be inappropriate for me to state a position about a policy, practice or otherwise with legislative forecasts or implications.

Seat 9

Brad A. Salmon

Name: Brad A. Salmon

Age: 40

Immediate family: Wife, Rebecca W. Salmon

Occupation: District Court judge (11th Judicial District; Lee, Harnett and Johnston)

Elected office held: In the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, I was elected to the NC House for District 51 (Lee and Harnett).

Contact: brad.a.salmon@gmail.com; judgebradsalmon.com ; facebook.com/JudgeBradSalmon

What is your judicial philosophy? As an appellate judge, it would be my responsibility to approach each case individually and review it based on the particular facts and the established law. Any opinion I would reach would be based on Constitutional law, be it state or federal, statutes and prior case law.

Some state and federal Supreme Court justices have said if an issue involves a “political question,” the courts must not hear the case or issue a ruling in favor of the person asserting that the legislative or executive branches have violated their constitutional rights. What are your thoughts on that practice? A true "political question" is a matter for legislative bodies. Judges should adhere to the rule of law and established precedent.

Critics say partisan judicial primaries and partisan judicial elections are making candidates more beholden to Democratic and Republican politics than to the rule of law. What are your thoughts of having nonpartisan elections — with all candidates vs. all candidates, with party labels — as some states do in an effort to ascertain the will of all the people and not just the shrinking number of voters who identify with the major political parties? The politicization of the courts is dangerous to our democracy and erodes the public trust. Judges should be above politics and adhere to the rule of law.

Donna Stroud

Name: Donna Stroud

Age: 58

Immediate family: My husband, J. Wilson Stroud, and I live in Garner, have been married since 1986, and have two adult sons.

Occupation: Chief Judge, NC Court of Appeals

Elected office held: Elected to District Court, 10th Judicial District (Wake County), 2004; elected to the Court of Appeals, 2006; re-elected without opposition in 2014.

Contact: JudgeStroud@yahoo.com; judgestroud.com; facebook.com/JudgeStroud; Twitter: @judgestroud

What is your judicial philosophy? My work on the court as a judge is to fairly and impartially consider every case and to rule in accord with the law as it is written, and not as I may think the law should be or as any political party may believe it should be. The role of the General Assembly is to make law; the role of the Court of Appeals is to correct errors of law or procedure in cases appealed from the trial courts or administrative agencies. I have written nearly 1300 opinions while serving on the Court of Appeals, and my judicial philosophy is demonstrated in those opinions.

Some state and federal Supreme Court justices have said if an issue involves a “political question,” the courts must not hear the case or issue a ruling in favor of the person asserting that the legislative or executive branches have violated their constitutional rights. What are your thoughts on that practice? The political question doctrine is quite complex; it would take far more than a few sentences even to describe it. Application of this doctrine differs depending upon whether the issue arises under state or federal law and depending upon the type of issue presented in each case. On the Court of Appeals, we are required to follow the law as set out in prior cases from our court or from the Supreme Court, including any law regarding the political question doctrine, and my practice is to follow the precedential law in every case I consider.

Critics say partisan judicial primaries and partisan judicial elections are making candidates more beholden to Democratic and Republican politics than to the rule of law. What are your thoughts of having nonpartisan elections — with all candidates vs. all candidates, with party labels — as some states do in an effort to ascertain the will of all the people and not just the shrinking number of voters who identify with the major political parties? That’s a complex question which deserves a thoughtful answer but it’s difficult to provide in brief form. First, all voters, whether registered with a party or unaffiliated, are free to vote for any candidate in a general election. Unaffiliated voters are also free to vote in the primary elections of the party of their choice. Partisan elections do not decrease voter participation; it is well-documented that having party labels increases voter participation so if your goal is to have as much voter participation as possible, research shows partisan labels help. I have been a candidate in both non-partisan and partisan elections; each type has its pros and cons. There is less voter participation in non-partisan judicial races. Further, in polls taken over many years, most voters say they want to know the political affiliation of judicial candidates. In addition, my experience over the past 20 years has been that when judicial elections were technically non-partisan, both the Democrat and Republican parties participated fully in the judicial elections, with each party seeking to inform voters about its own candidates, so in that regard, most of those elections were “partisan” in every way but information on the ballots. I am honored to have major bipartisan support due to my nearly 16 years of work on the Court of Appeals, where I focus on fairness and maintaining the rule of law.

Seat 10

John M. Tyson

Name: John M. Tyson

Age: 69

Immediate family: Married to Kirby Thomason Tyson, 1975. Children: son, Jason; daughter, Caroline; son, John Havens; and son, Henry. Four grandchildren

Occupation: Judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals; adjunct professor of law, Campbell University School of Law and Elon University School of Law

Elected office held: Judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals, elected 2001-09 and re-elected 2014- present; elected vice chair by peers on the Dispute Resolution Commission, appointed by Chief Justice Mark D Martin and reappointed by Chief Justice Cheri Beasley; appointed by the governor as chair of the North Carolina Ethics Commission, 2013-2014;appointed to the North Carolina Property Tax Commission by the Speaker of the NC House of Representatives, 1997-1999; appointed to the Legislative Research Committee on Private Property Rights, North Carolina General Assembly, 1995, and the Legislative Research Committee on Impact Fees, Exactions and Dedications by the President Pro-Tem of the Senate, North Carolina General Assembly, 1994; elected to Cumberland County Soil & Water Conservation District, elected vice chairman and later chairman of the board, 1992-1996; appointed to Cumberland County Joint Planning and Zoning Board, elected vice-Chairman and later chairman of the board, 1993-2001.

Contact: judgejohntyson.com; facsimile, 910-323-VOTE; twitter.com/JudgeJohnTyson; facebook.com/Judge-John-M-Tyson-338652999292; linkedin.com/in/judge-john-m-tyson-008b961a/

What is your judicial philosophy? My judicial philosophy is consistent with the mission & goals of North Carolina's Judicial Branch, which requires judges: “To protect and preserve the rights and liberties of all the people, as guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and North Carolina, by providing a fair, independent and accessible forum for the just, timely and economical resolution of their legal affairs.”

I believe in and have put into practice that judicial accountability and efficiency, which demands a life-long commitment to continuing education, training, and experience. This philosophy has developed over many years of experience, study, and practical application of the law as a practitioner. law professor, and as a trial and appellate judge.

Some state and federal Supreme Court justices have said if an issue involves a “political question,” the courts must not hear the case or issue a ruling in favor of the person asserting that the legislative or executive branches have violated their constitutional rights. What are your thoughts on that practice? The North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3, paragraph (6) states: “A judge should abstain from public comment about the merits of a pending proceeding in any state or federal court dealing with a case or controversy arising in North Carolina or addressing North Carolina law and should encourage similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control.”As the third co-equal branch of government, judges should be independent of the Legislative or Executive branches and remain objective and limit themselves to the facts of the case in their decisions. All of my decisions are based upon the application of the facts of the case to the law and not my personal opinion or beliefs. I am elected by and am accountable to the People of North Carolina. As an error correcting and appeal of right court, the Court of Appeals is bound to follow its prior precedents, the precedents of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, and rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States on federal constitutional matters. My judicial philosophy is further stated at www.judgejohntyson.com.

Critics say partisan judicial primaries and partisan judicial elections are making candidates more beholden to Democratic and Republican politics than to the rule of law. What are your thoughts of having nonpartisan elections — with all candidates vs. all candidates, with party labels — as some states do in an effort to ascertain the will of all the people and not just the shrinking number of voters who identify with the major political parties? I have sought and been elected as both a party-affiliated as a non-partisan candidate to the Court of Appeals. The North Carolina Constitution requires since 1868 our trial and appellate judges to be elected by the people. The legislature has decided that all judicial election ballots will identify the political party the candidate has affiliated with. The absence of this party affiliation caused a significant drop off in voters for judicial candidates, as much as 25 to 30% of party-identified races. The listing of a candidate's party affiliation provides more information to the voters than merely a name alone on the ballot. The State Elections Judicial Voter Guide also helps to educate voters.

Gale Murray Adams

Name: Gale Murray Adams

Age: N/A

Immediate family: Glenn B. Adams and four children

Occupation: Superior Court judge

Elected office held: Superior Court judge

Contact: judgegaleadams@gmail.com

What is your judicial philosophy? I have served in the United States Navy as a Judge Advocate General (JAG), and I have worked as an assistant district attorney and as an assistant federal public defender. In 2012, I was elected by the people of Cumberland County to serve as a Superior Court judge. My diverse legal experience strengthens my commitment to follow the law and not someone's political ideology; to decide cases fairly and impartially without regard to who you know, where you come from, or what you look like; and to treat people with dignity and respect, not in a condescending or rude manner.

Some state and federal Supreme Court justices have said if an issue involves a “political question,” the courts must not hear the case or issue a ruling in favor of the person asserting that the legislative or executive branches have violated their constitutional rights. What are your thoughts on that practice? As with any issue that comes before me, I pledge to follow the law and established legal precedent.

Critics say partisan judicial primaries and partisan judicial elections are making candidates more beholden to Democratic and Republican politics than to the rule of law. What are your thoughts of having nonpartisan elections — with all candidates vs. all candidates, with party labels — as some states do in an effort to ascertain the will of all the people and not just the shrinking number of voters who identify with the major political parties? Judicial races should be nonpartisan and the judiciary should operate independently, rule objectively, and administer equal justice to all of the citizens of North Carolina. Judges should not be deciding cases based on party affiliation, but based on the facts and the law before them.

Seat 11

Darren Jackson

Name: Darren Jackson

Age: 52

Immediate family: Wife, Tina; three children, Alyssa, Logan and Jack; one grandchild, Ina Rose

Occupation: Judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Elected office held: I have previously served in the NC House of Representatives.I have been on the Court of Appeals since January 2021.

Contact: darren@judgedarrenjackson.com; judgedarrenjackson.com; facebook.com/JudgeDarrenJackson; Twitter, @JacksonforNC

What is your judicial philosophy? I try to approach each case in a fair and impartial manner without any preconceived bias or desired outcome. Decisions I make on the court are based on the law as it is written and has been interpreted in prior court decisions. That is the only true way to do justice.

Some state and federal Supreme Court justices have said if an issue involves a “political question,” the courts must not hear the case or issue a ruling in favor of the person asserting that the legislative or executive branches have violated their constitutional rights. What are your thoughts on that practice? Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from publicly commenting on the merits of cases pending in state or federal court. Predicting how I might rule on cases that may likely come before me as a judge would undermine public confidence in the integrity, independence and impartiality of my rulings. Further, I would never want to convey the impression that I might favor one particular outcome, side, or party. For these reasons, I respectfully decline to answer this question.

Critics say partisan judicial primaries and partisan judicial elections are making candidates more beholden to Democratic and Republican politics than to the rule of law. What are your thoughts of having nonpartisan elections — with all candidates vs. all candidates, with party labels — as some states do in an effort to ascertain the will of all the people and not just the shrinking number of voters who identify with the major political parties? I have always supported judicial races being non-partisan and it was a mistake to move from non-partisan to partisan (after working well for 20 years), when it was done for the 2018 elections.

Michael J. Stading

Name: Michael J. Stading

Age: 41

Immediate family: I met my wife, Jennie, in high school in Mint Hill, North Carolina. Together, we raise three wonderful children.

Occupation: I am honored to serve as a District Court judge and preside over the same types of cases that are reviewed by the appellate courts. Additionally, I have the privilege to serve the country in the capacity of a reservist officer in the United States Air Force as an assistant staff Judge Advocate. Moreover, I have previously worked as a prosecutor, defense attorney and attorney representing law enforcement officers. Having worked in these various roles has provided a panoramic view of the courtroom giving critical and necessary experience for serving the citizens of North Carolina on the Court of Appeals.

Elected office held: District Court judge, Judicial District 26.

Contact: michael@michaelstading.com; facebook.com/JudgeMichaelStadingForNCCOA; Twitter, @MichaelJStading

What is your judicial philosophy?I consider myself to be a textualist informed by originalism. It is imperative that judges follow the law and not ascribe their own meaning to words. We are a nation ruled by laws, not by men.

Some state and federal Supreme Court justices have said if an issue involves a “political question,” the courts must not hear the case or issue a ruling in favor of the person asserting that the legislative or executive branches have violated their constitutional rights. What are your thoughts on that practice? A judge serving on the North Carolina Court of Appeals is obligated and bound to follow the United States Supreme Court precedent and North Carolina Supreme Court precedent regarding the political question doctrine.

Critics say partisan judicial primaries and partisan judicial elections are making candidates more beholden to Democratic and Republican politics than to the rule of law. What are your thoughts of having nonpartisan elections — with all candidates vs. all candidates, with party labels — as some states do in an effort to ascertain the will of all the people and not just the shrinking number of voters who identify with the major political parties? The issue of nonpartisan or partisan labeling of judicial elections is decided by and within the purview of the legislative branch. Regardless of the method by which judges are elected, politics should never enter the courtroom or influence the ruling of any judge at any level of the judicial branch. All rulings should be based on the facts of a particular case and the applicable law.

This article originally appeared on The Fayetteville Observer: Voter Guide: Meet NC Court of Appeals candidates