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

Two seats on the North Carolina Supreme Court are up for election in November. Republican Richard Dietz and Democrat Lucy Inman, both of whom currently serve on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, are vying for seat 3 on the Supreme Court. Incumbent Justice Sam J. Ervin IV, a Democrat, faces a challenge from Trey Allen, a Republican, for seat 5.

The chief justice and six associate justices serve on the Supreme Court for an eight-year term. Cumberland County voters will vote for one candidate in each of the two races.

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

Seat 3

Richard Dietz

Name: Richard Dietz

Age: 45

Immediate family: I am happily married to Kelley Dietz.

Occupation: Judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Elected office held: Judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Contact: JudgeDietz.com; youtube.com/JudgeRichardDietz; facebook.com/JudgeRichardDietz

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? We should always ask if there’s a better way to do things. Our courts have become increasingly political, and we owe it to ourselves to explore how we can reverse this trend and get politics out of the court system.

But getting politics out of our courts also means raising the bar for what we expect from our judges and candidates. Too many people run for judicial office claiming to reject politics, yet they spend all their time at partisan political events and hanging around with politicians. This makes the courts seem political and is the root of the problem.

I’ve made the theme of my campaign “leadership, not politics.” My request to voters is to do your homework and look me up — you won’t find me spending my time in politics. I’ve shown voters that I’m a public servant focused on helping the courts work for the people. I don’t have a political mission. My only mission — from the moment I took the oath as a judge — is to defend our rights, protect the rule of law, and help people resolve their legal disputes fairly.

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 single most important part of my job as a judge is to defend our rights. Many of the most important constitutional cases in our nation’s history have involved controversial political speech or issues. As judges, we cannot hide from these cases. Our job is to put aside our personal views, follow the law, and protect our constitutional rights.

In my time as an appeals court judge, I’ve shown that I have the character and temperament to work together with my colleagues, and to help them put aside their differences, so the court can reach a just result in every case. That’s the leadership I bring to our State’s highest court.

There has been discussion that if the North Carolina Supreme Court switches from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority following this election, a number of recent rulings that fell along party lines will be overturned. What makes it good public policy and good for the administration of justice to reverse precedent and have caselaw flip back-and-forth? Or is this bad, and why? The idea that the law will swing back and forth based on the composition of the Supreme Court is deeply troubling for me. One of the key roles of our Supreme Court is to maintain the certainty and stability that we have in our law. This is crucial because people need to know their rights and understand the law. If court rulings constantly change things, only lawyers will be able to keep up with it, and that’s damaging for our society.

Of course, there are times when a court decision is egregiously wrong, and then judges have an obligation to fix it. For example, in probably the most famous U.S. Supreme Court case in history, Brown v. Board of Education, the justices overturned a shameful earlier ruling that permitted racial segregation. But this sort of special case is about justice, not politics. Court decisions should not be overturned simply because of the outcome of an election.

Lucy Inman

Name: Lucy Inman

Age: 61

Immediate family: I live with my husband of 31 years, Billy Warden. We have two adult children.

Occupation: Judge, NC Court of Appeals

Elected office held: Judge, NC Court of Appeals

Contact: info@lucyinmanforjustice.com; Facebook.com/JudgeLucyInman; Twitter.com/JudgeLucyInman; lucyinmanforjustice.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? Nonpartisan judicial elections protect the independence of judges from partisan influence. A paper published in 2006 by the Brennan Center for Justice concluded: “Justice requires that judges put aside their political preferences and loyalties when deciding cases, and rule based on their understanding of the law and the facts at issue. But when judges look no different than other politicians during the election season, it creates the appearance — and perhaps also the reality — that they will not be able to avoid political biases when they sit in the courtroom.” In 2015, North Carolina’s General Assembly passed legislation making this state the first in nearly a century to revert from nonpartisan to partisan judicial elections. Since then, turnover in our appellate courts has increased dramatically, as has the frequency of judicial opinions expressing political criticism. Because the judicial branch is uniquely responsible for interpreting the law and making sure each branch of government acts only within its constitutional authority, the integrity and neutrality of judges – independent of political parties – is a fundamental value that should not be compromised by partisan labels. Ultimately, however, whether to hold partisan or nonpartisan judicial elections is a decision for the legislative branch, not the judiciary.

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 Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have recognized the “political question doctrine” based upon the separation of powers provision in our state Constitution. The doctrine prohibits judges from reviewing policy choices or value determinations made by the legislative or executive branches about matters that the Constitution has committed exclusively to one of those branches. For example, our courts have held that judges are prohibited from reviewing the Governor’s clemency decisions and the legislature’s scheduling of votes on bills. And yet, deciding whether the Constitution commits a matter to another branch of government is the responsibility of the judicial branch as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. It is one of the most consequential rulings a court can make. Public confidence can be undermined when a court is perceived to shirk its responsibility to decide a critical constitutional issue, or when a court is perceived to overstep its constitutional authority in violation of the separation of powers. Because courts decide many cases with political origins and consequences, it is essential that judges and justices detach themselves as much as possible from partisan political matters. This is another reason the partisan election of judges is fraught with problems.

There has been discussion that if the North Carolina Supreme Court switches from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority following this election, a number of recent rulings that fell along party lines will be overturned. What makes it good public policy and good for the administration of justice to reverse precedent and have caselaw flip back-and-forth? Or is this bad, and why? Reversing precedent and having caselaw flip back-and-forth disrupts the stability of the law and every person’s ability to know what is and what is not allowed by the law. When courts abandon precedent, especially in decisions viewed as motivated by partisan politics, we risk the public losing confidence in and respect for the judiciary.

A unanimous decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2021, rejecting an argument that it reverse its decision regarding the termination of parental rights, quoted extensively from the Court’s decision in 1940 to explain this caution:

Decided cases should be regarded as weighty authority, at least within the courts which decided them. It is, then, an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come up again in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion, as also because, the law in that case being solemnly declared and determined what before was uncertain, and perhaps indifferent, is now become a permanent rule, which it is not in the breast of any subsequent judge to alter or swerve from according to his private sentiments; he being sworn to determine, not according to his private judgment, but according to the known laws and customs of the land — not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one. In re S.C.C., 379 NC 303 (2021).

Seat 5

Trey Allen

Name: Trey Allen

Age: 48

Immediate family: Wife, Teryn Allen; and five children

Occupation: I currently serve as general counsel for the NC Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity, I provide legal guidance on criminal and civil matters to judges, clerks of court, and magistrates throughout our state. I am on leave from the School of Government at UNC-Chapel Hill, where I am a tenured associate professor of public law and government. Before joining the UNC faculty in 2013, I practiced law and was a partner at a Raleigh law firm, handling constitutional law claims and other civil claims in federal court and state court. I began my legal career as a judge advocate in the US Marine Corps. I served overseas for more than three years and completed a tour of duty in Iraq.

Elected office held: I have not previously held elective office.

Contact: treyallennc.com; treyallennc@gmail.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? It's ultimately for the General Assembly to decide whether ballots list the party affiliations of judicial candidates. Whatever the method of selection, a judge should stay true to the Constitution and decide every case based solely on the facts and the law. The judge's personal political views should play no role in the decision. In other words, judges should not legislate from the bench. Additionally, regardless of whether judicial races are partisan, judges should treat everyone fairly and with respect while also holding persons who have been duly convicted of crimes accountable for their actions.

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? If elected to the NC Supreme Court, I will have to follow the US Supreme Court's case law on the political question doctrine. That case law recognizes that our courts exist to resolve legal issues, Judges should not attempt to resolve political issues that properly belong to the legislative or executive branch.

There has been discussion that if the North Carolina Supreme Court switches from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority following this election, a number of recent rulings that fell along party lines will be overturned. What makes it good public policy and good for the administration of justice to reverse precedent and have caselaw flip back-and-forth? Or is this bad, and why? A high degree of stability in the law is necessary if we are to preserve the rule of law. Courts generally follow precedent in order to ensure that the law treats people in similar situations alike. The NC Supreme Court has the power to overturn its prior decisions, but it should follow precedent except when a compelling reason exists for not doing so. In deciding whether to overturn one of its prior decisions, the Court should consider (1) the quality of the prior decision's reasoning, (2) the workability of the prior decision in changed circumstances, and (3) the extent to which people have come to rely on the prior decision.

Sam J. Ervin IV

Name: Sam J. Ervin IV

Age: 66

Immediate family: I am married to Mary Temple Ervin and have two stepchildren and two children.

Occupation: Associate Justice, Supreme Court of North Carolina

Elected office held: Judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals (2009-2015); Associate Justice, Supreme Court of North Carolina (2015-present).

Contact: info@ervinforjustice.org; ervinforjustice.org; facebook.com/ervinforjustice

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 oppose selecting judicial officials in partisan elections and strongly believe that the General Assembly's decision to make North Carolina's judicial elections partisan, rather than nonpartisan, in nature was an unfortunate one. The use of partisan judicial elections erroneously suggests to voters that (a) judges make decisions based upon political or ideological considerations even though they should, in fact, decide the cases that come before them based upon the law, the facts, and nothing else and that (b) the work performed by judges should be evaluated using a partisan lens. Although those who favor partisan judicial elections argue that the presence of party labels on the judicial ballot gives voters needed information, a judge's partisan affiliation has no bearing upon the extent to which he or she does or does not make his or her decisions in accordance with the law, the facts, and nothing else. I am concerned that North Carolina's recent decision to resume the use of partisan judicial elections and the signals that that decision sends to voters will have an adverse effect upon public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of our judiciary.

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? According to well-established law, the "political question" doctrine "excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the" legislative or executive branches of government. Cooper v. Berger, 370 N.C. 392, 408 (2018) (cleaned up). In other words, the "political question" doctrine does not preclude courts from deciding politically charged cases; instead, it precludes courts from making determinations that are not subject to judicial review because the underlying issue is constitutionally committed to another branch of government under the separation of powers doctrine. As a result of my commitment to following the law, I will refrain from deciding a particular issue in the event that it has been constitutionally committed to the exclusive control of another branch of government and will appropriately apply the applicable law in evaluating constitutional claims when resolution of the issue in question is not the sole responsibility of another branch of government under the relevant constitutional provisions.

There has been discussion that if the North Carolina Supreme Court switches from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority following this election, a number of recent rulings that fell along party lines will be overturned. What makes it good public policy and good for the administration of justice to reverse precedent and have caselaw flip back-and-forth? Or is this bad, and why? One of the primary purposes of the law is to provide people with guidance concerning what they can and cannot do in their daily lives. In order to provide people with clear guidance concerning their legal rights and responsibilities, the law relies upon the doctrine of stare decisis, which provides that a prior line of decisions is "binding upon the courts and should be followed in similar cases." State v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764, 767 (1949). I firmly believe that certainty in the law is a good thing and, for that reason, am convinced that adherence to precedent is very important. Although the Supreme Court of North Carolina does have the authority to overturn its own prior precedent, well-established law makes it clear that prior decisions should only be overruled to avoid "palpable" error and working a "grievous wrong." Ballance, 229 N.C. at 767 (cleaned up). As a result, I support the basic premise of our legal system, which is that judges should adhere to existing precedent and refrain from failing to follow it unless the decision in question is clearly legally erroneous and works "a grievous wrong."

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