Reclaiming Justice in North Carolina Starts Now

The courts matter, and in North Carolina, they’ve never mattered more. That’s why North Carolina Democratic Party leadership has made reclaiming the N.C. Supreme Court the central pillar of their statewide strategy. The plan is clear, disciplined, and achievable… and it starts now.

In 2026, Democratic Justice Anita Earls will be on the ballot. Re-electing Justice Earls is essential to protecting voting rights and keeping the path open to real change. Holding this seat allows Democrats to build momentum toward 2028, when multiple Supreme Court seats will be up for election and a fair, pro-democracy majority is within reach.

This is a long-term strategy, and it only succeeds if local parties and grassroots voters engage early and often. Judicial races may not always grab headlines, but their impact reaches every community—from fair maps to equal access to the ballot. The first step is to know the NCDP’s plan to flip the NC Supreme Court back.

The Clay County Democratic Party proudly supports the NCDP’s strategy to restore balance to our courts. By educating voters, supporting Democratic judicial candidates, and turning out the vote, we can help ensure North Carolina’s courts serve the people, not partisan politics.

Visit the NC Democratic Party’s web page to Elect Fair Judges for 2026
Download the PDF flyer of Know the Plan suitable for printing
Field Team Justice: Become an Anytime Canvasser for Anita Earls

Why the NC Supreme Court Matters

Education and Funding for Rural Schools

Why it matters: State policy on school funding is critical for WNC’s rural districts. The long-running Leandro v. State case (originally about poor, rural counties) puts a spotlight on funding disparities. In Nov. 2022 the NC Supreme Court (4–3) ordered the legislature to fund years 2–3 of the Leandro education plan (about $1.7 billion more). This plan targets low-wealth districts for better pay, tutoring, facilities, etc. However, after that election flipped the Court’s majority, legislative leaders sued to block the funding. A rehearing of Leandro has been pending for two years.

Likely scenarios and consequences: If the Court ultimately lets the 2022 order stand, rural schools (like those in mountain counties) could see millions more in state aid – improving teacher salaries, bus routes, technology, etc. If not, many remote schools will remain underfunded. Regardless, the slow decision process driven by Republican judicial members means delay in funding; local boards and parents are anxious. Meanwhile, education law cases can also touch textbooks, school choice, and more, but Leandro is the main one. WNC voters care deeply about local schools: a Supreme Court that forces full funding could shrink class sizes and raise outcomes in these communities. A Republican led court that continues to cave to legislative stalling could leave counties like Clay, Jackson, Haywood, and Cherokee struggling.

Voting Access & Election Law

Why it matters: Voting rules directly affect citizens’ ability to cast a ballot. In 2023 the NC Supreme Court (Republican‐controlled) upheld the photo-ID voting requirement (SB824) by ruling plaintiffs had not proved it violated the state constitution. This overturned a prior decision that had struck down the law. The net effect is that mountain-area voters must still bring an approved photo ID to vote. Securing an ID can be harder for older or low-income residents in rural counties, so this ruling means ID requirements stay in force. Similarly, the Court has so far let stand new GOP-backed election laws (e.g. limits on same-day registration and ballot collection), making voting rules stricter. In short, the current Republican led Court is inclined to keep or increase election restrictions.

Likely scenarios and consequences: WNC voters might see fewer polling places or more ID checks. New voter ID rules and curtailed registration could reduce turnout in smaller counties. Since the Court also said partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable, the legislature can draw voting districts that favor one party without fear of a constitutional challenge. That means Western counties could be grouped into safe seats with little opportunity for competitive races. For example, a rural county split between two long, narrow districts could weaken its clout in Raleigh or Congress.

Redistricting & Representation

Why it matters: Representation in Raleigh and Washington depends on how district lines are drawn. Historically, NC courts often struck down gerrymanders. But in Harper v. Hall (Apr. 2023) the Supreme Court (same 5–2 majority) reversed itself and barred courts from policing partisan maps. The new opinion held that NC’s Constitution does not forbid partisan gerrymanders, effectively saying redistricting is a “political question” beyond judicial review.

Likely scenarios and consequences: Without judicial checks, the legislature’s next map-drawing will likely heavily favor the party in power. Western NC counties – which often swing or include both urban (e.g. Asheville) and rural conservative areas – could see oddly shaped districts. For instance, a liberal city like Asheville in Buncombe County might be “packed” with other liberal areas to waste votes, or split to dilute their impact. Conversely, Republicans in the legislature could draw boundaries to spread conservative rural voters to elect more GOP legislators. In either case, voters may feel their votes are discounted. With no veto (NC’s governor lacks veto power over maps) and the Court backing off, only voters or a supermajority amendment could change this.

Environment and Natural Resources

Why it matters: Western NC depends on clean air, water and forests – for tourism, farming and health. The Supreme Court’s recent decisions affect how environmental laws are enforced. In N.C. Farm Bureau v. DEQ (Oct. 2025), the Court struck down new pollution-control conditions on hog and poultry farms because DEQ hadn’t gone through public rulemaking. This means agencies like DEQ must follow strict procedures before imposing environmental rules. In Sound Rivers, Inc. v. DEQ (Sept. 2023), the Court upheld a mining wastewater permit – rejecting challengers’ claims that the permit violated water-quality standards. Thus, the Court has made it a bit harder for regulators to act quickly, while allowing some large projects (like mines or quarries) to proceed under existing rules.

Likely scenarios and consequences: Rural WNC communities may find state agencies less able to impose clean-water safeguards on agriculture or industry without full public hearings. For example, water quality advocates worried that Court’s Farm Bureau decision could delay tighter runoff controls. On the other hand, if courts continue to favor strict APA (administrative procedure) compliance, all sides expect more public input before new environmental rules. If large projects (quarries, pipelines) need Supreme Court signoff, these rulings suggest courts may side with state agencies’ chosen permits. WNC voters should note the balance: the Court is prioritizing formal rulemaking (which can slow regulations) and often deferring to DEQ’s expert findings (as in the mining case).