Justice Anita Earls: Advancing Civil Rights and Fair Representation in North Carolina

Peter Pappas: Welcome back to the Carolina Cabinet. I'm your host, Peter Pappas, with the pleasure of Justice Anita Earls just joining us this afternoon. Welcome.

Justice Anita Earls: Thank you. Glad to be here.

Peter Pappas: I'm gonna give you the really hard questions first. So it says I I found that you grew up in Seattle and you lived in Durham for decades. So when it rains here, do you miss Seattle at all?

Justice Anita Earls: Well, I miss the mountains. I I definitely enjoyed hiking i when I was growing up and the ki the cascades are beautiful in that part of the country. but

Peter Pappas: Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: other than that I've really come to love the North Carolina climate. You can't you can't beat the Carolina blue sky.

Peter Pappas: Right. Well so are you mountains or beach kind of person?

Justice Anita Earls: I'm a mountains person, although of course I love the beach as well. Yeah.

Peter Pappas: Mountains person. Okay, okay. all right. So how long have you been serving in your capacity right now?

Justice Anita Earls: So I was elected in twenty eighteen, so I've now been on the courts seven and a half years.

Peter Pappas: Okay, okay. And what led you to the legal profession? What tell us about maybe your your upbringing a little bit, like where you're from

Justice Anita Earls: Well actually I I I really appreciate what's makes the legal profession a profession. and in fact I think what we most have to offer people is our counsel. You know, we're called counselors at law. so I wanted to be a lawyer because I grew up in a mixed race family. My father was black, my mother was white, and they

Peter Pappas: Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: met in Missouri at a time when it was illegal for them to be married in that state and actually in most of the country.

Peter Pappas: Mm-hmm.

Justice Anita Earls: But that's why they moved out to Seattle, because Washington State was one place where legally they could get married and they I grew up there, but that experience and really many others of seeing how the failure to enforce our civil rights laws were impacting my family's opportunities. Everything from where we could live, what schools we could go to, what jobs my parents could have, what they'd get paid for their work, what access we'd have to health care. All these basic things were were being impacted by race and by the failure to enforce civil rights laws. So I wanted to be a lawyer to try to use the legal system to protect people's rights.

Peter Pappas: Understood. Well, you know, it it's it's funny that you went right there. That was my first question about your upbringing and stuff like that. So thank you for telling me your story there. now. Where did you grow up out there? Like tell me about your journey back to North Carolina.

Justice Anita Earls: Sure. So I l I left to Seattle to go to college. I was

Peter Pappas: Mm-hmm.

Justice Anita Earls: really fortunate. I was the first one in my family to be able to go to a four-year institution. And I went to the school that gave me the most scholarship money, and that was Williams College in western

Peter Pappas: Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: Massachusetts. So again mountains and beautiful northern mountains there in western Massachusetts and I just never got back to Seattle. I then had a Watson Fellowship to study abroad for a year. I came back to the US and went to law school in Connecticut, at Yale Law School, and came straight to North Carolina from law school. I read about the incredible work of Julius Chambers and the Chambers Law Firm in Charlotte. then partner Mel Watt, also a Yale law grad, came back to his alma mater to recruit and talked about the work of their firm and it was just an incredible opportunity for me to come and do exactly the kind of work I had gone to law school to do. So I came

Peter Pappas: So what

Justice Anita Earls: to North Carolina in nineteen eighty eight and I've basically been here ever since.

Peter Pappas: What what attracted you to that? Besides just having a fellow Yale Greg, 'cause that's important. I get that, the alumni networking and all, but what about his firm? You said they were doing great work. What were they doing?

Justice Anita Earls: So Julius Chambers, for anyone who doesn't know that name, is really a nationally renowned civil rights attorney. He argued between the period of about the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, he argued every major civil rights case that advanced the law in the US Supreme Court and in multiple areas of the law. So he argued Grigs v. Duke Power, which established an important principle of how you prove employment discrimination. He argued Thornberg versus Jingles, which was a major voting rights case. he he he really set and and of course, how can we forget Swann versus Charlotte Mecklenburg, major precedent that changed how racial integration happened in our public schools across the country. So that kind of legacy of work to protect people's rights and open up doors of opportunity was was exactly what I had hoped to do with my career.

Peter Pappas: certainly fit right into your bailiwick, it sounds like. I mean, you kind of fell right into that. okay, so you went to work or did you end up going to work with them, career and how did so we got a little bit left on how you got here.

Justice Anita Earls: Well, so yes, I came to North Carolina in nineteen eighty eight,

Peter Pappas: Mm-hmm.

Justice Anita Earls: had a statewide practice with the law firm. That means clients from across North Carolina would come to the firm seeking representation. I handled a wide range of types of civil rights cases, employment discrimination, voting rights, school desegregation, housing discrimination, disability rights cases, First Amendment challenges for a wide range of types of people. I represented law enforcement officers, I represented parents of students in schools and I represented community organizations. I I I they were always non partisan groups. So I represented in double ACP, League of Women Voters, a variety of types of groups that were trying to improve access in our democracy. And over the thirty years that I worked as a civil rights attorney, I argued cases in the federal circuit courts, three different federal circuit courts in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, in the North Carolina Supreme Court. And I had the opportunity to try cases to juries. I did criminal defense work, so I tried a number of felony jury trials and also handled a criminal case in federal court. I tried civil cases to juries and some of the voting rights cases were tried to judges. Some of them were three judge panels. So just a really wide range of types of cases that I think prepared me well for being on the court where it's important to be a generalist because we handle a lot of different types of cases.

Peter Pappas: And that's a pretty big theme. We've spoken to a lot of judges here locally that are running for office. And it's like, you know, the district courts, you it's a merry go round. You know, you get assigned to different courts and it gives them that perspective of practicing in front of diff for different types or areas of the law. So I always felt like that was important. so

Justice Anita Earls: Yes, well I I I will say that trial judges have a r have a really challenging job and I was in district court, state district court, I did family law for two years. decided I

Peter Pappas: Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: wanted to focus on on other areas, but I have the greatest respect for our trial judges across the state. They have real tough jobs.

Peter Pappas: They it's like yeah, that's where the meat is in the grinder right there. It's just they some of their dockets are so grueling and I don't I I I I one of the judges, I we were in the same forty under forty class, maybe like probably fifteen years ago, long time. And she just looks tired. Just ex you know, and it's just I know how much she does and I know how hard she works at it. And I it's it's just it really is a very, very tough job. so you're running to basically continue to be abused. so you spent twenty years doing all that and thirty years. Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: thirty years, sorry, thirty years.

Peter Pappas: So okay, thirty. All right. Excuse me. So how many times did you sue the state of North Carolina in that time period?

Justice Anita Earls: I could not tell you off the top of my head. The state was a defendant in voting rights cases on occasion,

Peter Pappas: Right.

Justice Anita Earls: but sometimes it was local governments. The state was also a defendant in a disability rights case that I was involved in. But also on other in other instances, I was at counsel table with the state of North Carolina. So in the racial gerrymandering cases, I I represented interveners who intervened as defendants. And so there I was on the same side as the state of North Carolina. And I suppose

Peter Pappas: Well, Your Honor, it wasn't really a trick kind of question. It was more like, I think you've been in the courtroom a lot against the state, which means if you were going after you must know how things are supposed to work. And you've done the research and you have the bench knowledge to know that's why it was wrong and that's why you needed to hold them accountable. So it's not a negative that you have them as a defendant. To me.

Justice Anita Earls: Well what I would say is is that I think as a judge we are sworn to treat all litigants equally. So that means

Peter Pappas: Mm-hmm.

Justice Anita Earls: whether it's the state as a party, whether it's a business, a small business, a large business, two large corporations in a controversy, no matter who the parties are, it's our responsibility to give them you know the best of our attention and try

Peter Pappas: Right.

Justice Anita Earls: to understand their arguments and be fair to everyone.

Peter Pappas: Well, it's absolutely what we're looking for. I think as citizens, we want a fair shake no matter what. so this is the one thing. So the I know I believe your opponent is Miss Stevens, if I'm not mistaken. Is that okay, w we don't need

Justice Anita Earls: That's correct. former State Representative Sarah Stevens.

Peter Pappas: we don't need to mention her name anymore in your segment, but I just wanted to verify that before because the the critics your critics basically they're saying, Well, you came as a l litigator and you never stopped being one. So tell me why that's wrong. The wrong way to look at you.

Justice Anita Earls: Well, I w I f will never back away from my record as a litigator and the value of that record for being on the court. every justice comes to the court with experience in some area of the law. And I think it it actually serves the people of the state well to have people from a variety of types of backgrounds. I'm the only member of the court with a experience with criminal defense work. But that doesn't mean I'm the only one who worked in the criminal justice system. so former prosecutors are on our court. the when I the the main difference is that in private practice I had a client I was representing and I was responsible for advancing that client's interest. And the c the code of professional responsibility actually makes clear that an attorney does shouldn't be charged, if you will, with the the views or the values of their client because it's their job to represent the client, they're not themselves. Unless

Peter Pappas: Right.

Justice Anita Earls: they're representing themselves. I never was a my own attorney in any case. But just to finish my answer, my point is now that I'm a judge, my responsibility is up is to uphold the law, to enforce the law as it's written, to carry out the intent behind the state statutes that we have and the constitutional provisions that we have. That's a very different orientation than when you're representing a a single client's interests. And

Peter Pappas: Absolutely.

Justice Anita Earls: I yeah, I I've I've so for the past seven and a half years, I have not practiced law or or re represented anybody or given anybody legal advice.

Peter Pappas: In these campaigns, everybody loses their ever loving mind. And there's attack ads on both sides. And not that I've seen any from you. It's a lot of packs and a lot of things that really it's not coordinated with the candidate, and people don't understand that. because that's your history as a litigator and a defense attorney, I don't think you should be vilified for what you did in a former life when you've committed and taken the oath to serve your office. well here and that's that's kind of the ads that get run for your opponent and for other people like well they did XYZ well like you just said they didn't take on the client's views their job was to and and I would want to defend you the same way that any other judicial candidates being attacked that you had to put food on the table that was your trade. I don't see it as any more damning than that. What's your opinion?

Justice Anita Earls: Well I would also s I I would also say that in a so in in my I I do think that it's fair for people to look at our record and and what we what we've done in the past, that that's sort of when we put ourselves on the ballot, that's that's fair game. We

Peter Pappas: Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: have an adversarial system in this country. It's not an inquisitorial system. W in other words, we believe that justice is best reached when you have two parties, they each have representation and they present their evidence. A neutral fact finder decides what's true and what's not true and applies the law to those facts. So so the system only works when there's representation of of all both parties. So I I've been in in as I've been going around the state talking with folks, one of the issues in our criminal justice system is that we don't have enough attorneys in some of our rural areas. For district attorneys to be able to prosecute the the defendants that they that have been charged with crimes because

Peter Pappas: Mm-hmm.

Justice Anita Earls: there aren't enough defense attorneys to represent those folks. And so it's really important from the perspective of what we think is necessary in a justice system, it's really important that attorneys are willing to represent people in criminal cases. And I would also point out that. The civil rights tradition is one of of repr representing everyone's rights. I I remember very vividly a a story about Julius Chambers and how he sent one of his law partners down to Robison County to represent a member of the Klan because they were not being allowed to march and in his view they had First Amendment rights. So so I I I I I think that that's also an aspect of my background that I believe particularly in the arena of voting rights. my practice has always been to try to make sure that everyone is able to exercise the right to vote if they're a citizen, if they're over the age of eighteen, if they have registered according to the law, then they should be able to cast a ballot and that ballot should count equally.

Peter Pappas: I I think the most important thing you just said was if they registered according to the law and that's what everybody loses. We have so many people that jump off at headlines, you know, and they don't read the fine print. And I think the registered by the law is one of those fine print things that people they just they just don't they don't read the context, Judge. They just don't. And We need to stop being adversarialist people out here. We need to be able to take off the blue and the red jersey and be able to act like human beings. But I don't know. Maybe I'll get my wish.

Justice Anita Earls: Well and I would also say I I think there's a lot of people who agree with that statement you just made because so many people are now registering as unaffiliated

Peter Pappas: Mm-hmm.

Justice Anita Earls: in our state and I think it's because there is a large segment of voters out there who want to see us work harder to come together.

Peter Pappas: Well all right, so I'll put you on the spot and then I'll go on the spot too. What civic organizations do you belong to?

Justice Anita Earls: currently

Peter Pappas: Ro ro ro I'm I'm I'm just throwing that out out you know, because Rotary or Kiwanas, anything like that.

Justice Anita Earls: Sin I resigned from a number of organizations when I

Peter Pappas: Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: became a judge, and currently the only organizations I belong to are professional association type organizations, such as the American Bar Association, the North Carolina Bar Association, the Association North Carolina Association of Women Attorneys, the North Carolina Black Lawyers Association. So those are the those are the only associations I belong to now.

Peter Pappas: Keep keep it in your lane. Yeah. Okay. Well, and this was just going off of the unaffiliated registration trend is that people I think we're just we become so individualistic that we don't want to belong to anything. Now, I'm guilty. I'm not a member of the Kawanas or any of that stuff. I've been invited and it looks like fun, but I got a life. I got stuff I gotta do. I don't have all that disposable time and I'm glad that you're involved with where you're at, but I just think the unaffiliated thing is more of a trend overall. Whether the parties are pissing people off or not, which we know they are, they're just over it. And they don't want to be associated with. so at any rate. Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: Well I would also add that I think that it's hard to find places where other than cultural arenas, so

Peter Pappas: Mm-hmm.

Justice Anita Earls: you know, the I think there's plenty of associations around everything from you know knitting or or exercise or music or dance or theater. There's lots of cultural ways to interact with people from a variety of backgrounds. But in our civic world, It's actually hard to find those places that are non partisan.

Peter Pappas: Mm-hmm. It is, it is. And you know, being prejudged by the party we're registered is tough sometimes. I know you felt it, and I just I definitely feel it here in Fayetteville since we're a super minority of the electorate here in Fayetteville. I think it's three to one Democrat unaffiliated to one Republican. So we're definitely outnumbered here. So you should do well here, I guess, in that case. If they're gonna pull the lever for the Democrat. okay. This is not a Senate confirmation hearing, so I'm not gonna ask you how you're gonna rule on stuff. That's just not the way this works at all. but you have had tell me in the last eight years that you've been up there, and that is an eight-year term, correct? Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: That's correct.

Peter Pappas: So in the eight years you've been up there, what is a case that maybe you wrote the opinion that really stuck out and was important to you? They're all important to you, but what is there one or two cases that in your eight years that really Stick out.

Justice Anita Earls: Well, actually the case that I think probably has had the had the potential to have the biggest impact on the people of the state is a case where I did not write the majority, but I joined the majority, and that was our

Peter Pappas: Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: case around the question of partisan gerrymandering. And in twenty twenty two I was part of the majority on the court that said that extreme partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the state constitution. This was after the federal US Supreme Court had said that they're not going to address gerrymandering, they're going to leave it to the states. And that of course came in a case from North Carolina. But the

Peter Pappas: Yeah.

Justice Anita Earls: the US Supreme Court said the states have more tools to address gerrymandering, including their state constitutions. And our our state was not the first. Pennsylvania and several other states had found that gerrymandering is is contrary to their state constitution. And I I emphasize that decision because I believe that the structure of our democracy is fundamental to all the other issues that we care about in the state. Everything from the pocketbook issues to you know, affordable housing, access to health care, protection of the environment, public education, all of those things are impacted by how our our election districts are drawn and whether or not they fairly reflect how people in the state vote. The twenty twenty two decision that I'm referring to authored by Justice Robin Hudson was a very nonpartisan decision. We s we gave the General Assembly four different measures that they could use to evaluate whether the districts they were drawing were fair to all voters. And it wouldn't matter if Democrats were withdrawing the districts, Republicans were drawing, who they supposedly favored, if those districts did not meet the Some combination of those tests. We didn't say use this one or that one. We said here's diff here's four different ways that political scientists measure districting systems to decide whether they're fair to all voters. Use these measures if if if the maps fall within those parameters, very

Peter Pappas: Sure.

Justice Anita Earls: similar to how we enforce one person, one vote, which is clearly a requirement that we now accept under the US Constitution and the state constitution. We didn't prior to 1964. People people I think today would be surprised to learn that one person, one vote

Peter Pappas: Whoa, whoa, whoa, you mean you mean one person wanna vote as far as we were excluding people is what you're talking about. Pre civil rights.

Justice Anita Earls: No, I'm saying that the that the measures the measures that we used that we now

Peter Pappas: Mm-hmm.

Justice Anita Earls: use thanks to the US Supreme Court to decide whether districts meet the one person one vote requirement are similar to the measures that we used to say decide whether these maps are fair. And and it and in my view it was a nonpartisan decision because it didn't it wouldn't matter who was gerrymandering, if the maps weren't fair they'd be unconstitutional under our ruling.

Peter Pappas: And I appreciate that you said no matter who's gerrymandering, because I I think it was last Monday or Monday before I'm just like shrugging. I think I had Representative Wheatley on here and we were talking about the gerrymandering and I'm like, look, whoever's in power, they're tending to do this kind of stuff, and we do it to each other. It's so punitive back and forth, no matter what party's in charge. It's just everybody does it. But you mentioned one line about superpartisan gerrymandering or something along those lines.

Justice Anita Earls: Extreme partisan

Peter Pappas: How granular extreme partisan. So like what did that look like? How granular were they getting that was over the over the top? Do you recall or have an idea?

Justice Anita Earls: Well, so it's it's hard to it's easier to describe in the one person one vote context because there are congressional districts have to be the same size within one person and our state legislative

Peter Pappas: Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: districts has to be have to be plus or minus five percent deviation. So that so so I would say our partisan maps didn't have to be like congressional. They didn't have to be perfectly symmetrical to how people vote. but it was much more like the plus or minus five percent. So here's a range. If you're in the range you're fine. But if you're outside, then it's extreme. And and that w those are the c so there's like I said, four different measures.

Peter Pappas: So you all were able to define and i it wasn't just you ruled and said no don't do that. It was don't do that. Here's four ways you can avoid that. You gave the legislature the tools. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: Well here's four measures. That's right, here's four neutral measures that that that this court would use that this court used in twenty twenty two and that subsequent courts could use to evaluate maps to do to make sure and the goal at the end of the day, the goal is to make sure that everyone's vote counts equally.

Peter Pappas: Okay. Okay. Well, I know there's there's way more nuance to it than that that we can cover in a twenty minute segment. I just it it's just one of those things I roll my eyes at, the partisanship that gets involved with that. And you do have to wonder sometimes. You know, when I hear people say that that's a D plus whatever or an R plus, meaning how strong it is for either party, it's almost like we've pretty much predetermined for the voter, Well, this is how you're going to be represented. We are we are taking away the ability of the individual voters. and that's just Peter Papa saying that. So we won't let that be stuck to you in any shape or form. Okay. You mentioned, go ahead.

Justice Anita Earls: Well what I would add what I would let a final add about gerrymandering is that it not only results extreme gerrymandering not only results in a in a disconnect between how people have voted and then who gets elected and who's represented in the governing body, but it also has the impact of discouraging people from participating in the future because they do feel like their vote doesn't matter, You know, there's nothing they can do to impact who represents them. And I think th there's a there's is a slight difference, a distinction, between maps that are are gerrymandered and maps that have districts that are swing districts, right? those are actually two separate concepts. So I'm not our measure would not have required the General Assembly to make every district a swing district that could go either way depending on turnout. But it D those measures do require that who ultimately ends up in office is representative of how people vote. And and I think this discouragement effect, this effect that people lose hope in our democracy is is is one of the reasons why people in other states have used initiative and referenda to constrain the whoever's drawing the maps in their state to to put limits on what they can do. Florida has citizens' initiatives and quite some time ago group Fair Districts Florida got together, got petitions, got a ballot initiative, and Florida has a requirement now in their state constitution that people that the legislature, when it draws maps, cannot take into account partisan data at all. And then and then there's a process of review by the state Supreme Court. Now that you can debate how effective that is, but that's an example of citizens coming together and saying, We think our democracy demands that our districts be fair and they were able to do that through initiative and referenda. We don't have those processes in North Carolina.

Peter Pappas: Okay. So we have room to grow, possibly. We can all that's what I love about our con US Constitution and the state. I know we can evolve it and it doesn't have to be the same static document. and I'll just bring up because the three amendments that are on the ballot for our constitution deal with voter ID, income tax, and property tax limiting.

Justice Anita Earls: Property test.

Peter Pappas: So I can't wait until that ends up back in y'all's court because I I have my own opinions on those three. so but anyway, it but I'm hoping you'll be a good check to the balance and you guys'll figure it out, not let the legislator take all the power. But the one last the one last question, and because the last couple of years have been very how do you call it? a lot of theater in politics. It seems like we're getting more and more theater. Regarding military voters, and in the Griffin case you wrote that your colleague's order was something Someone called a bloodless coup. So looking back, would you use those same words again or do you feel like that was spot on?

Justice Anita Earls: I think it was extraordinary that the order of our court would disenfranchise people who put on a uniform to serve our country. And for me this is not academic. My brother served in the army for ten years and I know the sacrifices that he made and his family made for him when he was overseas, you know, for all of the ways in which those folks deserve as much as anyone else to have their voices heard. And Ultimately the federal courts agreed with me and found that our courts order violated due process and equal protection under the US Constitution.

Peter Pappas: Okay. Yeah, I I I was not a fan being a Republican here seeing all that theater and drama. I just it it sickened me to see that happen, you know. I especially here in Fort we have Fort Bragg. This is a military town. You can't throw a rock and not hit a veteran. And not that you want to hit veterans, but you know, I I mean it to yeah, don't throw don't throw rocks. Yeah, please

Justice Anita Earls: I don't throw rocks at anybody actually.

Peter Pappas: don't. yeah. We we have to have this what is it, the the anger rooms or whatever, go do it there, the sledgehammers and all that stuff. but no, for me it was my father was not natural born citizen here and you know, th whenever's people screw around with the voting or the litmus tests change and things, it really just gets I have a special opinion about some of that stuff. Let's just say that. So last one. before I let you go. If someone agr watching agrees with me on almost everything and they just think you're just wrong on everything, what's the one thing you'd want them to take out of the last half hour?

Justice Anita Earls: I hope they would understand my point of view even if they can't agree with it. I hope that I've been able to explain my position and and I appreciate people taking the time to be informed and and so I'm grateful to in to everyone who's listened and I do obviously I hope that they will consider supporting me, but I I thank you for for giving us the opportunity to have this discussion and to for me to be able to explain a little bit more, as you said, in depth about my background.

Peter Pappas: Well, I I you are welcome anytime. And if my co-host were here, she would be asking you this question. She would say, Well, campaigns do not run they run on money and people. So where can people find out more about your campaign, possibly make a donation? So go ahead and tell us where they can find that.

Justice Anita Earls: Yes, so my website is Earls for Justice dot com, Earls Number Four Justice, all one all together, dot com. And there you will find links to the I'm on seven different social media sites, so you can find links to my social media. I also have a tab on my website about Leandro, so that's about the school funding case. So people can learn how much it it I I've just included their material that was prepared by a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. But it has county by county how much money those districts would have received under the prior courts Leandro order and what that would have meant for that district. So making it concrete, how many teachers they could have hired, how many school counselors, what other resources those particular districts needed. So that's on my website as well as the details of my biography. The organizations that have endorsed me and ways to get involved, whether it's signing up for my emails or making a contribution to my

Peter Pappas: Well Justice Searles, you know, I skipped over number two on my list, Leandro. I was gonna ask you about that, but that seems to be beaten so terribly dead as a dead horse. just really quickly, is Leandro essentially no more at this point? Is there Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: The case is done, is over, but the constitutional guarantee of a sound basic education is still in the constitution. And and I think the essence of my dissent in that case was to emphasize that that case was about education rights, not education policy. And so I agree that it is the legislature's role to determine education policy. But but when it comes to our rights, that's the court's role. It's the court's role to uphold

Peter Pappas: Okay.

Justice Anita Earls: State Constitution and the State Constitution is clear that that all children in the state, it in Article I it talks about everyone shall have the privilege of the right of an education, and then there's an entire article, Article 9 of our state constitution, entitled education, that it sets out what the state needs to do to make sure that students have access, have the opportunity. And and it was the trial courts that in the Leandro case found that we were not providing that opportunity across North Carolina.

Peter Pappas: Well, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but Justice Dietz, a Republican, dissented as well, along with you. So I don't know what that tells the voter. What does that tell you if you had somebody across the aisle dissent with you?

Justice Anita Earls: I think that what matters is what we write in our opinions, not so much I think there's too much emphasis on our partisan background and and less attention to the rationale behind what we're saying. Justice D. Snide had very different takes on the case, but he didn't agree with the majority. So so what I would say what his dissent means is that he didn't agree with the majority. Similarly, I didn't agree with the majority.

Peter Pappas: Okay. Okay. Well and like like you said, it doesn't have to be it doesn't have to be partisan. Kids and potholes and street lights are not partisan and we just need to serve them all and take care of it. So all right, well Justice Searles, the door's always open. hopefully we'll get you back after the election and we you can you can even visit Fayetteville, you can come to the studio. But

Justice Anita Earls: Well that'd be the next time I'm in I'm in Cumberland County, if I have a few moments I'll definitely look you up.

Peter Pappas: Please look us up. It'd be a pleasure to meet you. So everybody watching, you can find all of our videos, links, all that good stuff, the Carolina Cabinet.com. Just Google it, we'll come up. And it takes four seconds to like and subscribe. So please do. And if you feel compelled, please reach out and support Justice Earls Justice, have a good afternoon. Thank you for being here. Okay,

Justice Anita Earls: Thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks.