Should Justices Hear Cases Brought by Their Largest Campaign Donors?

Senator Warren Daniel
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 13, 2022

Should Justices Hear Cases Brought by Their Largest Campaign Donors?

Justice Anita Earls’s largest donor is funding the redistricting case she’s about to hear

Where are all the so-called “good government” groups now?

Raleigh, N.C. — Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls won her 2018 election with a $250,000 boost from Eric Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

Now she’s hearing a case brought before her by that same organization.

Do the groups claiming to be defenders of democracy think it’s healthy for justices to hear cases brought by their largest campaign backers?

Or are they hypocrites, pretending to support noble causes until it threatens their political agenda?

In 2018 Justice Earls won her race for N.C. Supreme Court with less than 50 percent of the vote.

On September 20, 2018, the NDRC donated the maximum allowable amount to Justice Earls’s campaign.

On that same day, the NDRC donated $250,000 to the N.C. Democratic Party’s “judicial coordinated fund.” Justice Earls was the only Democratic candidate running for Supreme Court in 2018.

In the three weeks following the NDRC’s “judicial coordinated fund” contribution, the N.C. Democratic Party sent $199,000 to Justice Earls’s campaign.

Before the NDRC’s contribution, the N.C. Democratic Party had sent just $900 to Justice Earls’s campaign.

In October 2018, Mr. Holder personally attended a fundraiser for Justice Earls.

The website for Mr. Holder’s organization confirms that his group is funding the litigation before Justice Earls.

Good government? You be the judge.