Candidate Biography (submitted by candidate):

My trial experience came early in my career. I graduated Law Review from Wake Forest University, passed the bar, and set up my own practice without interviewing with a firm. I feared that I would be hired for my writing skills and just had to know if I could compete in the courtroom when someone's freedom, assets or children's custody were on the line.

I was able to blend 15 years of growing a law firm in my hometown with 12 years of legislative responsibility representing it. As a six-term legislator, I devoted every moment to keeping campaign promises. Though the job of legislator requires one to stretch and be conversant in the full spectrum of legal issues, the reality is that a public body rewards some degree of specialization.

I chose the law of the workplace and, after twelve years of building expertise, the role of NC Commissioner of Labor was a natural next step. After election, my knowledge in this area was shaped and tested for eight more years beneath a bright public light.

By 2001, I was appointed to Chair (CEO) the North Carolina Employment Security Commission where I served seven years. While the Commission could and did hear important cases, the vast number of cases and appeals was the daily challenge.

My politics, decisions, and the perspective that comes from making tough decisions beneath a bright public light are a matter of record. So is my personal love of issue-based campaigns. 

No election to the judiciary should be issue-based and we should not allow them to move in that direction. Even though current law allows much more latitude in responding to questions, it does not affect my belief that one should remove themselves from issues where they have "pre-announced" in a campaign environment their leanings. Such statements not only create an expectation (a moral contract) with the voters but undermine public confidence in the Judiciary. Hints as to how one might rule often include which US Supreme justices we identify with, endorsements of persons or advocacy groups with clear public expressions on these issues or nods from judges who, through their decisions are clear in their perspective on the issues of the day.

These endorsements are comforting in that you know "how they might go", but we don't wish this to become voting a result from the bench. The farthest place that I can go on that continuum is to refer to my record and to suggest that, beyond the understanding of the process and the Court's place in our judiciary which is shared by all of the candidates, this is a decision for voters regarding each candidates thoughtful, reflective judgment on matters placed before them.

Appellate Judges don't try cases, write briefs, argue issues or make any decisions off of the "top of their head" as trial judges are required to do. They apply a lifetime of season with legal reasoning to reach their independent result in a case. My judgment has been shaped by this attorney's life and work experience in the laws affecting the North Carolina workplace.