Earls and Stevens Close Out N.C. Supreme Court Race; Result Will Leave GOP Majority at 5-2 or Make It 6-1
Democratic Justice Anita Earls and Republican former Rep. Sarah Stevens disagree over how much courts should check lawmakers and regulators. The court already upheld Duke Energy's 2023 rate increases 5-2 in May, and the seat's eight-year term runs past the 2030 Census.
Two Seats, One Question About Power
On November 3, North Carolina voters will pick one justice for the state Supreme Court[1]. Republicans already hold 5 of the court's 7 seats. Only one seat is on the ballot[2][3].
So the GOP keeps its majority no matter who wins. A win by Republican Sarah Stevens would make it 6-1. A win by Democratic Justice Anita Earls keeps it at 5-2[2][3]. The prize is the size of the margin, and what a seat can do with a full eight-year term[2].
Earls is a former civil rights lawyer and has held the seat since 2018[1]. Stevens is a family law attorney. She served in the state House from 2009 until she resigned in June 2026 to run, and she was speaker pro tempore from 2017 to 2025[1][2]. The candidates made their final pitches in local media profiles published October 23–28[1][7]. WFAE also noted that many lower-court judicial races on the same ballot are uncontested[1].
Activist Judges, or Judges Who Check Power?
The two candidates agree on little, starting with what a high court is for. Stevens says "activist judges" have been "attempting to take over." She says Earls twists the state constitution to reach results she wants[7][9].
Stevens argues that courts should "follow the constitution as written, and the laws as written." She says they shouldn't "upset precedent unless it's clearly a violation of the constitution"[14]. On redistricting, she says the text is clear that the General Assembly draws the maps[8].
Earls answers that "an activist judge is just a judge you disagree with." She says the real activism came in 2023. The new Republican majority reheard cases the court had already decided and reversed them[7]. She calls that "a radical break with 205 years of history"[8]. In her view, it gave lawmakers "free rein" to draw maps for partisan advantage[8].
Here are the facts both camps accept. In 2022, a Democratic majority that included Earls struck down legislative and congressional maps as partisan gerrymanders. After Republicans won a 5-2 majority, the court reversed that ruling in 2023[8]. Since then, state courts don't police partisan gerrymanders under the state constitution[8][3].
The Deference Question
Underneath both fights sits one question. How far should judges defer to another branch? On maps, that branch is the legislature. On utility rates, it is expert regulators[5][8].
Stevens's side says courts should stay out of policy the constitution or the legislature has handed to others. Voters can hold lawmakers accountable at the ballot box[8]. Earls's side says courts exist to check those bodies when they act unlawfully or unfairly.
Each candidate's answer predicts her votes in both kinds of case. Both camps tend to talk about results instead. That leaves the doctrine underneath less discussed.
The Duke Case Is Already Decided
One premise needs correcting. The big Duke Energy rate case isn't still coming. On May 22, 2026, the court upheld the Utilities Commission's 2023 rate increases for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress. The vote was 5-2[4][6].
Earls dissented in part, joined by Justice Allison Riggs. Her target was the return on equity (ROE) set for Duke Energy Carolinas[4][6]. ROE is the yearly profit rate a utility is allowed to earn on the shareholder money it uses to build plants and lines. Regulators build that rate into customer bills.
The tension is real on both sides. Set the ROE too low, the commission's side argues, and investors demand more to fund the grid. The utility's borrowing costs rise, and customers pay for that later[5]. Set it too high, and households pay more now.
The numbers explain the dispute. Regulators set Duke Energy Progress at 9.8% in August 2023. They set Duke Energy Carolinas at 10.1% in December 2023, about four months later[6]. Carolinas serves the western part of the state, so western customers pay under the higher return[5].
Earls wrote that the two utilities presented substantially similar evidence. In her words, "the Commission determined that 1+1=2 in the first order and 1+1=3 in the second"[4][6]. The commission says each order rests on the evidence in that case. Financial conditions changed between the two[5].
The next round has already started. Duke is asking the Commission for a 10.95% return. The Attorney General is asking for 7.4%[6]. Any court appeal would come later, possibly before whoever wins this seat.
Ethics, Maps and the 2030 Census
Ratepayer and clean-energy advocates see the ruling through ethics. Chief Justice Paul Newby took part in the case. His financial disclosure lists Duke Energy stock owned by his wife[6]. They also note that Justice Phil Berger Jr.'s father, Senate leader Phil Berger, sponsored the law that changed the Utilities Commission[6].
Those points come from the Energy and Policy Institute, a utility watchdog. It notes the outcome would have been the same without Newby. The League of Conservation Voters, which backs Democrats, argues Stevens voted as a legislator for bills that let Duke keep raising rates. That is the group's own characterization[13].
Both sides have incentives tied to the calendar. A term starting in 2027 and running eight years would cover maps drawn after the 2030 Census[3]. Democrats want a judicial voice for partisan-fairness claims in that cycle. Republicans want to keep courts from blocking those maps[3]. Earls's backers also see the seat as a base for the 2028 fight over the majority[3][9].
The money and polls lean one way. Reports through mid-2026 show Earls raised about $4.4 million and Stevens about $336,000[10]. Published polls have put Earls ahead, at 47–50% to Stevens's 36–44%, with many voters undecided[11]. WFAE reported that Stevens has been largely absent from the campaign trail[12].
Same Race, Different Stories
Coverage splits by outlet. WFAE ran a voter-guide piece that names the Duke dissent and the redistricting split without picking a side[1]. Axios framed the race as a spar and quoted both sides' "activist" lines back to back[7].
The Carolina Journal, from the John Locke Foundation, treats the race mostly as positioning for control of the court in 2028[3]. The Center Square's headline said only that Duke's rate hikes were "affirmed." It left out the 5-2 split and the higher rates for western customers. No national right-leaning outlet turned up in the research.
Progressive outlets lead elsewhere. Bolts builds the race around voting rights, Earls's strongest ground[9]. The Energy and Policy Institute opens with conflicts of interest before the holding[6]. A Cardinal & Pine opinion piece focuses on how the ruling may enrich the chief justice, with little on the court's legal reasoning. Outside the U.S., this down-ballot race is essentially unreported.
What happens next is partly settled and partly open. The majority stays Republican either way. What isn't settled is whether the court keeps two dissenting votes, and who will hear the next Duke appeal and the maps drawn after 2030.
Summary
North Carolina voters will pick one state Supreme Court justice on November 3, 2026[1]. Democratic Justice Anita Earls, a former civil rights lawyer, has held the seat since 2018[1]. Her challenger is Republican Sarah Stevens, a family law attorney and longtime state House member[1][2]. Republicans now hold 5 of the court's 7 seats. Earls's seat is the only one on the ballot. So the GOP keeps its majority no matter who wins. A Stevens win would make it 6-1. An Earls win keeps it at 5-2[2][3]. The term lasts eight years[2].
The two candidates disagree about what a state high court is for. Stevens calls Earls an 'activist' who twists the state constitution to reach results she wants[7]. On redistricting, Stevens says the constitution is clear that the General Assembly draws the maps[8]. She says courts should not 'upset precedent unless it's clearly a violation of the constitution'[14]. Earls replies that 'an activist judge is just a judge you disagree with.' She says the real activism was the new GOP majority's 2023 decision to rehear and reverse cases the court had already decided[7]. In her view, those reversals gave lawmakers 'free rein' to draw maps for partisan advantage[8].
The story's premise needs one correction. The big Duke Energy rate case is not still coming. On May 22, 2026, the court upheld Duke's 2023 rate increases 5-2. Earls, joined by Justice Allison Riggs, dissented in part, on the 10.1% return set for Duke Energy Carolinas[4][6]. A new round has started at the Utilities Commission, where Duke is asking for a 10.95% return and the Attorney General for 7.4%[6]. Any court appeal of that decision would come later. The redistricting point is a matter of dates, not prediction. A term that starts in 2027 and runs eight years would cover the maps drawn after the 2030 Census.
The central dispute is about deference. How far should judges defer to elected lawmakers on maps, and to expert utility regulators on rates? Stevens's side says courts should stay out of policy that the constitution or the legislature has handed to others. Earls's side says courts exist to check those bodies when they act unlawfully or unfairly.
The Event
With the November 3, 2026 general election days away, the two candidates for North Carolina's one contested Supreme Court seat made their final cases to voters. They did so in local media profiles published October 23–28[1][7]. Incumbent Associate Justice Anita Earls (D) faces former state Rep. Sarah Stevens (R) for an eight-year term[2]. WFAE also reported that many lower-court judicial races on the same ballot are uncontested[1].
Undisputed Facts
- Republicans hold a 5-2 majority on the N.C. Supreme Court. Earls's seat is the only one on the 2026 ballot, so a Stevens win would make it 6-1[2][3].
- Stevens served in the N.C. House from 2009 until she resigned in June 2026 to run for this seat. She was speaker pro tempore from 2017 to 2025[2].
- On May 22, 2026, the court voted 5-2 to uphold the Utilities Commission's 2023 rate increases for Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress. Earls, joined by Justice Allison Riggs, dissented in part, on the return on equity set for Duke Energy Carolinas[4][6].
- Regulators set Duke Energy Progress's allowed return on equity at 9.8% in August 2023. They set Duke Energy Carolinas's at 10.1% in December 2023[6].
- In 2022, a Democratic court majority that included Earls struck down legislative and congressional maps as partisan gerrymanders. After Republicans won a 5-2 majority, the court reheard the case and reversed that ruling in 2023[8].
- According to reports through mid-2026, Earls had raised about $4.4 million and Stevens about $336,000[10].
- Chief Justice Paul Newby took part in the Duke ruling. His financial disclosure lists Duke Energy stock owned by his wife[6].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Majority math through 2030
- The seat runs eight years, so it covers the maps drawn after the 2030 Census. Since the 2023 reversal, state courts do not police partisan gerrymanders under the state constitution. Whoever controls the court decides whether that rule holds[8][3].
- Utility capital needs
- Duke's allowed profit rate (ROE) decides how much it can charge to pay investors. Here is how ROE works. The utility funds plants and lines partly with shareholder money. Regulators then let it charge rates that give those shareholders a set yearly return on that money. A difference of 0.3 percentage points, 10.1% versus 9.8%, applied to billions of dollars of equity, is real money on customer bills. That is why each side fights over it: one side over bills, the other over investor confidence and borrowing costs[5].
- Deference doctrine
- Both disputes turn on one question: how much should judges defer to another branch? On maps, the question is the legislature. On rates, it is expert regulators. Each candidate's position on that question predicts how she would vote in both kinds of case[5][8].
Material realityThe GOP majority survives no matter who wins[2]. Duke's 2023 rates are settled law after the May 22 ruling[4]. Western Duke Energy Carolinas customers pay under a higher allowed return than eastern Duke Energy Progress customers[5]. Earls far outraised Stevens through June[10]. Published polls have shown Earls ahead, by ranges of 47–50% to 36–44%, with many voters undecided[11]. Many down-ballot judicial races have only one candidate[1].
Narrative as a weaponDemocratic-aligned groups and progressive outlets want readers to see the race as a referendum on gerrymandering and on a court they portray as tilted toward Duke Energy. They lean on Earls's dissent and the Newby stock disclosure. Stevens and the state GOP want it read as a fight against 'activist judges' who override the legislature. Conservative outlets mostly treat it as a stepping stone in the battle for the court's majority. Both camps play down the doctrine underneath, which is how much courts should defer to other branches. The story's own framing that Duke rulings 'loom' overstates what is pending: the major rate decision has already been made.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asCourts are the check that keeps lawmakers and regulators within the law. Earls says the 2023 rehearing was 'a radical break with 205 years of history.' In her view, it reversed settled decisions only because the court's membership changed[8]. On the Duke case, her argument is about consistency. The two Duke utilities presented substantially similar evidence, yet regulators gave the western utility a higher profit rate months after giving the eastern one a lower rate. As a result, western customers pay more for identical service. She wrote that 'the Commission determined that 1+1=2 in the first order and 1+1=3 in the second'[4][6]. Her point is that deference to expert regulators cannot cover unexplained inconsistency.
WhyKeep at least two dissenting votes on the court. Keep a judicial voice for partisan-fairness and ratepayer claims ahead of the post-2030 redistricting cycle. Hold a seat for the 2028 fight over the majority[3][9].
Impact on themIf she loses, Democrats fall to one seat on the court. That would make a future Democratic majority harder to win, given the 2028 races[3]. Groups such as the AFL-CIO and NCLCV that have backed her would lose their most visible ally on the bench[9][13].
Frames it asThe state constitution gives map-drawing to the elected General Assembly, and voters can hold lawmakers accountable at the ballot box. Stevens says the text is clear that the legislature draws the maps[8]. In this view, a court that invents fairness tests is taking power the constitution never gave it. She says courts should 'follow the constitution as written, and the laws as written,' and should not upset precedent unless it is clearly a constitutional violation[14]. Stevens says she is running because 'activist judges' have been 'attempting to take over,' and that Earls's voting-rights and voter ID rulings strayed from what the constitution requires[7][9]. Her side reads the Duke ruling as normal judicial modesty. Setting rates calls for technical judgment the legislature assigned to the Utilities Commission. Judges should not second-guess it if the evidence supports it[5].
WhyWin a sixth Republican seat and make the GOP majority secure through the 2028 and 2030 elections. Keep courts from blocking maps the legislature draws after the 2030 Census[3].
Impact on themA win would give Republicans a 6-1 cushion. WFAE reported that Stevens has been largely absent from the campaign trail, and she trails badly in fundraising[12][10]. Polls have shown her behind[2][11].
Frames it asDuke and the commission did not campaign in this race. Their position comes through the record. The commission says each rate order rests on the evidence in that particular case. Rates in two separate cases can differ because financial conditions changed between them[5]. A regulator-set return on equity is the profit rate investors expect for funding the grid. Set it too low, the argument goes, and the utility's borrowing costs rise, and customers pay for that later[5].
WhyCourts that defer to regulators make a utility's revenue predictable. That predictability matters while Duke builds large amounts of new generation and grid capacity[4][6].
Impact on themThe May 22 ruling settled the 2023 rates, including the 10.1% and 9.8% returns. Duke is now asking the Commission for a 10.95% return, and the Attorney General wants 7.4%. Any appeal of that decision would come before whoever holds this seat[4][6].
Frames it asThese groups say the court's GOP majority sides with a monopoly against households. They point to Earls's dissent and to ethics questions. Newby's household owns Duke stock. Justice Phil Berger Jr.'s father, Senate leader Phil Berger, sponsored the law that changed the Utilities Commission[6]. NCLCV argues that Stevens, as a legislator, voted for bills that let Duke keep raising rates and keep money that courts had said was overcharged. That is NCLCV's characterization[13].
WhyLower electric bills and tighter oversight of Duke. Elect justices more willing to overturn rate orders[13].
Impact on themAdvocates expect a 6-1 court to make winning rate appeals harder[6][13].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.3
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WFAE | U.S. center (Charlotte NPR member station) | 2 | A closer look at judicial candidates on the ballot — and why so many are uncontested | A voter-guide frame that names the Duke dissent and the redistricting split without picking a side. A separate October 9 story pointed out Stevens's thin campaign schedule. |
| The Center Square | U.S. right-leaning (Franklin News Foundation) | 3 | Duke Energy rate hikes affirmed by Supreme Court | A plain 'affirmed' frame. The headline leaves out the 5-2 partisan split and the higher rates for western customers. |
| Axios | U.S. center | 3 | Anita Earls, Sarah Stevens spar for N.C. Supreme Court seat | A conflict frame that quotes both sides' 'activist' lines back to back. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right (John Locke Foundation) | 4 | NC Supreme Court race could shape battle for court majority in 2028 | Treats the race mainly as partisan positioning for control of the court. Gives less weight to ratepayer or fairness claims. |
| Bolts | U.S. left (progressive-leaning nonprofit outlet on election and justice policy) | 4 | They've Long Clashed on Voting Rights. Now They're Facing Off for a Supreme Court Seat. | Builds the whole race around voting rights, which is Earls's strongest ground. Her past as a voting-rights litigator is the lens. |
| Energy and Policy Institute | U.S. left (utility watchdog critical of investor-owned utilities) | 6 | Amid financial conflicts and recusal concerns, NC Supreme Court upholds Duke Energy rate hike | Opens with ethics before the holding. It does note that the outcome would have been the same without Newby, but the frame is conflict of interest. |
| Cardinal & Pine (Opinion) | U.S. left (Democratic-aligned Courier Newsroom network) | 8 | Opinion: How the NC Supreme Court's Duke Energy ruling may enrich the chief justice | A personal-enrichment frame aimed at one justice. The court's legal reasoning is largely absent. |
References
- A closer look at judicial candidates on the ballot — and why so many are uncontested — WFAE · Public radio (NPR member), center
- What to know about the Earls-Stevens race for NC Supreme Court — The Duke Chronicle · Independent student newspaper, Duke University
- NC Supreme Court race could shape battle for court majority in 2028 — Carolina Journal · Conservative; published by the John Locke Foundation
- NC Supreme Court upholds Duke Energy rate increase from 2023, which charges eastern and western NC residents differently — CBS17 · Commercial local TV news (Nexstar), center
- State ex rel. N.C. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates II (2026) — FindLaw (N.C. Supreme Court opinion text) · Primary source: court opinion
- Amid financial conflicts and recusal concerns, NC Supreme Court upholds Duke Energy rate hike — Energy and Policy Institute · Utility watchdog critical of investor-owned utilities; foundation-funded
- Anita Earls, Sarah Stevens spar for N.C. Supreme Court seat — Axios · Center
- Anita Earls says 2022 NC Supreme Court ruling against gerrymandering was correct — WFAE · Public radio (NPR member), center
- They've Long Clashed on Voting Rights. Now They're Facing Off for a Supreme Court Seat. — Bolts · Progressive-leaning nonprofit outlet
- Democrats sport big fundraising advantage in North Carolina Supreme Court race — Axios · Center
- 2026 North Carolina judicial elections — Wikipedia · Crowd-edited reference; compiles polls
- NC Supreme Court candidate largely absent from campaign trail — WFAE · Public radio (NPR member), center
- Court Rules For Duke Rate Hikes — NC League of Conservation Voters · Environmental advocacy group; endorses Democratic candidates
- Earls, Stevens face off for NC Supreme Court seat with dueling visions for the bench — WRAL · Commercial local TV news, center