Sitting State Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls Gives Political Speech at DNC Backed Rally
Speech raises ethics concerns…
Last night, North Carolina Supreme Court Associate Justice Anita Earls spoke at the so-called “People’s Townhall” featuring Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut and Representative Maxwell Frost from Florida. This is one of their political rallies sponsored by the DNC to further engage the progressive base.
As an aside, it makes sense that Earls wants to campaign with Maxwell Frost, who just returned from El Salvador to publicly advocate for un-deporting an MS-13 gang member. Before Earls ran for the Supreme Court, she served as the Executive Director for a far-left legal group, which, among other things, advocated for a leader of the Latin Kings, only for the Obama Justice Department to later unseal an indictment that led to her client’s conviction
Earls spoke at this town hall as one of the warmup speakers. Here are some key excerpts from her speech.
“I decided to run for the court because I was convinced that state courts matter a lot. You likely will never have a case in front of our court, but the decisions we make directly impact you. We decide cases that determine how much you pay for your electricity, whether you'll be fairly compensated if you're injured on the job, what you might have to pay for an emergency room visit if you are uninsured, whether there will be a way to guarantee you clean air and clean water, and whether your vote will count fairly.”
“And what I want you to remember, what is so important to remember, is that in 2022, when Democrats had a 4-3 majority on the State Supreme Court, we decided that if the legislature won't adequately fund a uniform system of public education as guaranteed by the state constitution, so that every child in this state has access to a sound basic education, then it's the court's responsibility to enforce that right, and we ordered that the money be spent in the Leandro case. We also ordered, we also found that an intentionally racially discriminatory voter ID law violates the state constitution. And we said that extreme partisan gerrymandering violates the state constitution.”
“So just think for a minute what these decisions in 2023 meant for the entire country. Instead of a 7-7 congressional delegation, which is what we had when we had fair maps, they redrew, and today we have 10 Republicans, 4 Democrats. If we had not lost those three seats, the House of Representatives in Washington today would be controlled by Democrats.”
“So the most important thing I want you to know is that if you want to change what is happening in Washington or in Raleigh, the only path to fair representation for all of North Carolina's voters is through the state courts.”
“So I hope you will agree with me that state courts matter a lot. You deserve a court that will protect your right to vote, a court that will protect your right to a clean environment, your right to control your own body, your right to a government that is responsive to your needs and concerns, and your children's right to a sound basic education.”
Background
The North Carolina Judicial Code of Conduct limits the political activity of judges to preserve the public’s trust in an impartial judiciary.
However, Earls has previously given politically charged speeches before, which led to an investigation from the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission in 2023. She responded by filing a federal lawsuit, alleging that the Judicial Code improperly limited her First Amendment rights. The controversy ended when the Commission dropped its investigation, and she dropped her lawsuit in response.
In 2024, in a similar situation, three leading Republican State Senators filed a complaint against Justice Allison Riggs for violating the North Carolina Judicial Standards for overtly partisan campaigning.
Tim’s Take: The speech from Earls sounded like a prepared stump speech that she will probably give hundreds of times as she campaigns for reelection. However, the real risk for Earls is that by staking out positions on issues and asking for votes, she may well disqualify herself from hearing the cases she is campaigning on.
A 2022 memo from the Judicial Standard Commission warns: Judges should be mindful that whenever they make public statements, whether in the campaign context or otherwise, there is a potential that those statements can be used as a basis for a disqualification motion if the statements show a bias in a particular case or towards a particular class of litigants. In all campaign statements, therefore, judges should use the same caution and professionalism as they would in other contexts to ensure continued public confidence in the impartiality, integrity and independence of the courts, and to avoid reasonable questions as to the judge’s impartiality in the cases over which he or she presides.
By campaigning on voting rights, education funding, and gerrymandering, she may well disqualify herself from hearing these cases if she secures reelection.
