Earls Wins Re-election to N.C. Supreme Court, 58.85% to 41.15% in Unofficial Returns; Court Stays 5-2 Republican
Democratic Justice Anita Earls defeated Republican Sarah Stevens. The result does not change who sits on the court, and the same seven justices will hear Gov. Josh Stein's challenge to laws limiting his appointment powers on Nov. 10.
A Win That Changes Nothing, and a Case That Could Change a Lot
On Nov. 3, North Carolina voters re-elected Justice Anita Earls, a Democrat, to the state Supreme Court. She beat Republican Sarah Stevens, a former state House member. In unofficial returns, Earls has 58.85% and Stevens 41.15%, with 99.96% of precincts reporting[2]. Axios rounds that to 59% to 41%[1]. The results aren't certified yet[2].
Here's the odd part. It was a lopsided win, and it moves almost nothing. The court stays 5-2 Republican[1]. Its seven members have been the same since Democrat Allison Riggs joined in September 2023[2]. Earls' new term runs through 2034[1].
The race still drew heavy money. The Brennan Center estimates North Carolina Families First spent $2,748,125 and the American Civil Liberties Union spent $1,134,426. The ACLU of North Carolina announced a $3.5 million campaign for Earls[12]. So why spend that much on a seat that was already hers?
Why the Seat Matters Beyond the Seven
The answer lies in 2028. Three Republican-held seats will be on the ballot that year. If Democrats win two, they take back the majority they lost in 2022[4][13].
That majority would matter a great deal. The court that sits after 2028 would hear challenges to new district maps drawn after the 2030 census[4]. Earls' supporters say a dissenting voice keeps that goal in reach. They point to coming cases on abortion and gerrymandering, where they argue a dissent can shape the law[12][4].
Republicans see the same math from the other side. They would like a 6-1 court, which would make control safe through 2028. They'd also like rulings that favor the legislature in separation-of-powers fights[13][16]. Their allies add that the 5-2 split reflects how voters chose in 2020, 2022 and 2024. The party lost a chance to widen its hold, but its majority is safe for now. In 2028 it has to defend three seats[4].
Stevens ran as a lawyer with more than 30 years in family-law practice and long legislative experience[1]. She represented Surry County in the state House from 2009 to 2026. She was speaker pro tempore from 2017 to 2025, and she resigned in June to focus on the race[1][15].
The Duke Ruling at the Center of the Campaign
Earls' backers made one ruling their main example. On May 22, 2026, the court voted 5-2 to uphold Duke Energy rate increases that state regulators approved in 2023. Earls dissented, and Riggs joined her[8][11].
To see the dispute, you need to know how a utility's profit is set. Duke is a monopoly, so regulators set the return on equity (ROE). That's the profit rate investors can earn on the money they put into power plants and lines. If the rate is too high, customers pay more than they need to. If it's too low, investors put their money elsewhere. Then Duke must pay more to borrow, and that cost also lands on customers' bills.
The majority opinion, by Justice Trey Allen, held that setting ROE "requires regulatory judgment." It found the Utilities Commission explained its choice well enough[8][19]. The court's defenders see a court letting expert regulators do the job state law gives them[8]. Their view is that a judge should apply the law as written, not swap in a personal view of good policy.
Earls saw it differently. She wrote that the decision means "Duke Energy will charge consumers in the western part of the state more than consumers in the eastern part of the state for identical electrical services." She called the regulators' decision "quite plainly unlawful and arbitrary." By her count, Duke Energy Carolinas customers will pay $129 million more than the company's other customers[9][10].
Critics such as the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog group that opposes utility influence, say the court went too easy on regulators. They also raised questions about justices' financial conflicts and recusal[9]. Ratepayer advocates want closer court review of the multi-year rate plans a 2021 state law allows[10].
Nov. 10: Same Seven Justices, Bigger Question
Next comes a case that is easy to confuse with the election. On Nov. 10, the court hears Gov. Josh Stein (D) against Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Destin Hall, both Republicans. It has set 2.5 hours of combined arguments in Stein v. Berger and Stein v. Hall[5].
The election doesn't change who decides it. Earls' current term runs through 2026, and the bench is the same either way[2][5].
Stein is challenging a 2024 law with two parts. One part requires him to fill an appeals court or Supreme Court vacancy from three names given by the departing judge's party. A divided Court of Appeals upheld that rule 2-1, reversing a trial court that had ruled for Stein[6]. The other part moved some of his board appointments to other officials. That includes one Utilities Commission seat, now chosen by the Republican state treasurer[6][20].
Treasurer Brad Briner (R) used that power to appoint Donald van der Vaart in July. Briner later dropped his own Supreme Court appeal. The utilities issue reaches the court through Stein's appeal[7].
Two Readings of the Same Law
Stein argues the state constitution gives the governor appointment power, and the legislature can't hollow it out. In his view, the party-list rule lets party officials, not the elected governor, pick who joins the state's top courts. He says moving board seats strips the executive branch of control it needs[6][17]. All five living former governors filed briefs backing his position[17].
Any governor, regardless of party, has an institutional interest in keeping that control. Stein also wants back powers the Republican-led legislature trimmed after he took office. That includes a say over the Utilities Commission, which sets Duke's rates[6][20].
The legislative leaders argue the constitution gives the General Assembly broad power to set up and staff state boards. They say the vacancy rule respects voters. A seat voters gave one party stays with that party until the next election, instead of going to whichever party holds the governor's office[6][17]. Briner argues that elected Council of State officials like himself are legitimate appointing authorities. He says the Court of Appeals agreed[18][7].
Both sides frame this as a question about the legislature's power to write rules, not about partisan advantage[17]. The legislature also has a stake in keeping its say over appointments[6][20]. Whoever names judges, and whoever sits on the commission that sets Duke's rates, shapes policy without any election.
How the Coverage Split
Outlets told the election story differently, though few got the numbers wrong. Carolina Journal, published by the conservative John Locke Foundation, ran a plain results story. It stressed that the court's membership stays the same[2]. The foundation also filed a brief backing lawmakers in the Stein cases[17]. The story itself doesn't show that lean.
Axios moved quickly to the 2028 fight over control of the court[1]. NC Newsline, part of the progressive-funded States Newsroom, placed the win inside the Democratic Party's long-term effort to retake the court[4]. Cardinal & Pine, part of the Democratic-aligned Courier Newsroom, listed only Democratic winners in its headline and talked about flipping the court "blue"[14].
The Duke ruling split along similar lines. The Center Square led with the majority's reasoning that regulators get deference[8]. The Energy and Policy Institute and the NC League of Conservation Voters put ethics questions and customer costs first[9][10]. One caution applies to any story that links the election to Nov. 10: the vote did not affect that case, because the bench is the same[5].
What remains open is the case itself. The seven justices who upheld the Duke rates in May will decide who fills court vacancies and who names a Utilities Commission member. The 2023 rates stay in place, and so do the Court of Appeals rulings unless the justices reverse them[6][7]. The election decided 2034. The Nov. 10 arguments start deciding who holds appointment power in between.
Summary
Democratic Justice Anita Earls won a second eight-year term on the North Carolina Supreme Court on Nov. 3. She beat Republican Sarah Stevens, a former state House member. In unofficial returns, Earls has 58.85% of the vote and Stevens 41.15%, with 99.96% of precincts reporting[2]. The new term runs through 2034[1]. Democrats also held three seats on the state Court of Appeals[2].
The win keeps things as they are. Republicans still hold the Supreme Court 5-2. Its seven members have been the same since Democrat Allison Riggs was appointed in September 2023[2]. Three Republican-held seats are on the ballot in 2028. If Democrats flip two of them, they win back the majority they lost in 2022[4][13]. That court would then sit in judgment on redistricting fights after the 2030 census[4].
Next up is a big case. On Nov. 10, the court hears Gov. Josh Stein (D) against Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Destin Hall, both Republicans[5]. Stein is challenging a 2024 law with two parts. One part makes him fill a vacancy on the state's appeals courts or Supreme Court from three names chosen by the departing judge's political party. The other part moves some of his board appointments to other officials. That includes a Utilities Commission seat now chosen by the Republican state treasurer[6][20]. The election does not change who decides the case. Earls' current term runs through 2026, so the same seven justices will hear it either way.
The main dispute is over what the election means. Earls' supporters cast it as a vote on a court that, they say, sided with Duke Energy against ratepayers. In May 2026 the court upheld Duke rate increases by a 5-2 vote, and Earls wrote the dissent[9][10]. The court's Republican majority and its defenders see that ruling differently. To them, the court was letting expert regulators do their job as state law says[8]. They see the Stein cases the same way: the issue is the legislature's power to write rules, not partisan advantage[17].
The Event
On Nov. 3, 2026, North Carolina voters re-elected Justice Anita Earls (D) to Seat 1 on the state Supreme Court over former state Rep. Sarah Stevens (R). Unofficial returns show 58.85% to 41.15% with 99.96% of precincts reporting[2]. Republicans keep their 5-2 majority on the court[1]. The court has set 2.5 hours of combined arguments in Stein v. Berger and Stein v. Hall for Nov. 10, the first day of its November session[5].
Undisputed Facts
- Earls led Stevens 58.85% to 41.15% in unofficial returns with 99.96% of precincts reporting. The results have not yet been certified[2].
- The Supreme Court stays 5-2 Republican. Its members are unchanged since Allison Riggs joined in September 2023[2].
- Stevens represented Surry County in the state House from 2009 to 2026 and was speaker pro tempore from 2017 to 2025. She resigned from the House in June to focus on the race[1][15].
- Three Republican-held Supreme Court seats are on the ballot in 2028. Democrats would need to win two of them to take a majority[4][13].
- On May 22, 2026, the court voted 5-2 to uphold Duke Energy rate increases that state regulators approved in 2023. Earls dissented, joined by Riggs[8][11].
- A 2024 law requires the governor to fill appeals court and Supreme Court vacancies from three names given by the departing judge's party. A divided Court of Appeals upheld that rule 2-1, reversing a trial court that had ruled for Stein[6].
- The same law moved one Utilities Commission appointment from the governor to the state treasurer. Treasurer Brad Briner (R) used it to appoint Donald van der Vaart in July. Briner later dropped his own Supreme Court appeal, and the issue reaches the court through Stein's appeal[7].
- The Brennan Center estimates outside spending in the race at $2,748,125 by North Carolina Families First and $1,134,426 by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU of North Carolina announced a $3.5 million campaign for Earls[12].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- The 2028 majority math
- With Earls safe through 2034, Democrats need to win two of three Republican-held seats in 2028 to take control. Republicans need to hold two of the three[4][13].
- Redistricting after the 2030 census
- Whoever controls the court after 2028 will decide challenges to new maps after the 2030 census. That raises the stakes far above any single ruling[4].
- Who controls appointments
- Who names judges, and who sits on the Utilities Commission that sets Duke's rates, decides policy without any election. The Nov. 10 cases settle that between the governor and the legislature[6][20].
Material realityNothing about the court changes in the near term. The same seven justices, five Republicans and two Democrats, hear the Stein cases on Nov. 10, as they would have whatever the election result[2][5]. The 2023 Duke rates the court upheld in May stay in effect. Western N.C. customers pay more than eastern ones, $129 million more by the dissent's count[9][10]. The vacancy rule and the Utilities Commission appointment stay as the Court of Appeals left them unless the Supreme Court reverses[6][7].
Narrative as a weaponDemocratic-aligned outlets and outside groups such as the ACLU (about $1.13 million, by Brennan Center estimates) and the NC League of Conservation Voters want readers to see the win as a vote against a pro-utility majority and a first step to 2028[12][10][14]. Conservative outlets, led by the Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal, report the result plainly and stress that the court's balance is unchanged. The Locke Foundation is also a party-side amicus in the Stein cases[2][17]. Linking the election to the Nov. 10 arguments, as this story's own assigned framing does, can suggest the vote affected that case. It did not: the bench is the same either way.
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 asEarls' supporters say a court with only two Democrats needs at least one strong voice that checks powerful interests. Their main example is the Duke rate case. Earls wrote that the decision means 'Duke Energy will charge consumers in the western part of the state more than consumers in the eastern part of the state for identical electrical services.' She called the regulators' decision 'quite plainly unlawful and arbitrary.' She noted that Duke Energy Carolinas customers will pay $129 million more than the company's other customers[9][10]. Her allies add that the court will soon decide cases on abortion and gerrymandering. In those cases, they argue, a dissent shapes the law and keeps a 2028 majority within reach[12][4].
WhyHold the seat so that flipping two of three seats in 2028 is enough to win back control before redistricting after the 2030 census[4][13].
Impact on themDemocrats keep a base for 2028. Outside groups spent millions in the race, including about $1.13 million by the ACLU by Brennan Center estimates[12].
Frames it asRepublicans argue a judge should apply the law as written, not substitute their own view of good policy. On this view, the Duke ruling was the court letting state regulators make the expert, data-driven calls that state law leaves to them[8]. Stevens ran as a lawyer with more than 30 years of family-law practice and long legislative experience[1]. Allies say the 5-2 majority reflects how voters chose in 2020, 2022 and 2024.
WhyGrow the majority to 6-1 so that control would be safe through 2028. That would also secure rulings that favor the legislature in fights over the separation of powers[13][16].
Impact on themThe party lost one chance to strengthen its hold. Its majority stays safe for now, but in 2028 it must defend three seats[4].
Frames it asStein argues that the state constitution gives the governor appointment power. In his view, the legislature cannot pass laws that hollow it out. He says the party-list rule lets party officials, not the elected governor, pick who joins the state's top courts. He says moving board seats, including a Utilities Commission seat, to other officials strips the governor of the control the executive branch needs[6][17]. All five living former governors filed briefs backing his position[17].
WhyRestore powers that the Republican-led legislature cut back after he took office, including a say over the Utilities Commission, which sets Duke Energy's rates[6][20].
Impact on themHis case goes to a 5-2 Republican court that this election left unchanged. If he loses, he has less control over the courts and over regulators in his remaining years in office[5].
Frames it asThe leaders argue the constitution gives the General Assembly broad power to set up and staff state boards. They say the vacancy rule respects voters: a seat voters gave to one party stays with that party until the next election, instead of going to whichever party holds the governor's office[6][17]. Briner argues that elected Council of State officials like himself are legitimate appointing authorities too. He says the Court of Appeals agreed[18][7].
WhyKeep the legislature's influence over appointments, including who sits on the Utilities Commission and who fills court vacancies[6][20].
Impact on themThey won at the Court of Appeals and now argue before the same seven justices who would have heard the case whatever the election result. Earls' win does not change the votes in this case[2][5][6].
Frames it asThe court majority, in an opinion by Justice Trey Allen, held that setting return on equity (ROE) 'requires regulatory judgment' and that the Utilities Commission explained its choice well enough[8][19]. Here is how ROE works. Duke is a monopoly, so regulators set the profit rate its investors can earn on the money they put into power plants and lines. Set it too high, and customers pay more than needed. Set it too low, and investors move their money elsewhere. Then Duke must pay more to borrow, and that cost also ends up on customers' bills. Critics such as the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog that opposes utility influence, argue the court went too easy on regulators. They also raised questions about justices' financial conflicts and recusal[9].
WhyDuke wants predictable rate approvals. Ratepayer advocates want closer court review of multi-year rate plans allowed by a 2021 state law[10].
Impact on themThe approved 2023 rates stand. Western N.C. customers of Duke Energy Carolinas pay more, a total of $129 million more by Earls' count[9][10].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.2
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right (John Locke Foundation) | 2 | Democrats sweep NC Supreme Court, Appeals Court races | A straight, precise results story (58.85%, 99.96% of precincts) that stresses no change in partisan balance. Its parent group is an amicus on the lawmakers' side in the Nov. 10 case. The story itself does not show that bias. |
| Axios | U.S. center | 2 | Democrat Anita Earls defeated Republican Sarah Stevens in N.C. Supreme Court race | Rounds the result to 59-41 and moves quickly to the 2028 'control' angle. Neutral, but the forward look shapes how readers see the win. |
| The Center Square | U.S. right-leaning (Franklin News Foundation) | 3 | Duke Energy rate hikes affirmed by Supreme Court | Puts the majority's reasoning that regulators get deference first. It gives the dissent's cost-to-customers argument less weight. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left (States Newsroom, progressive-funded nonprofit) | 4 | Democratic Justice Anita Earls wins reelection to the NC Supreme Court | Places the win inside 'the Democratic Party's long-term effort to retake control' and stresses 2028. Accurate, but the frame is the Democrats' strategy. |
| Cardinal & Pine | U.S. left (Courier Newsroom, Democratic-aligned) | 7 | North Carolina's 2026 election: Roy Cooper, Jamie Ager, Anita Earls win | Lists only Democratic winners in the headline, and the story talks about flipping the court 'blue.' This is a scoreboard told from one team's side. |
| Energy and Policy Institute | U.S. left (utility-watchdog advocacy group) | 7 | Amid financial conflicts and recusal concerns, NC Supreme Court upholds Duke Energy rate hike | Puts ethics questions ahead of the ruling itself and calls the 2021 law 'deeply flawed.' This is advocacy framing. |
References
- Democrat Anita Earls defeated Republican Sarah Stevens in N.C. Supreme Court race — Axios Raleigh · U.S. center; commercial digital newsroom
- Democrats sweep NC Supreme Court, Appeals Court races — Carolina Journal · Conservative; published by the John Locke Foundation, an amicus for lawmakers in Stein cases
- Democratic Justice Anita Earls wins reelection to NC Supreme Court — WRAL · U.S. center; commercial Raleigh broadcaster
- Democratic Justice Anita Earls wins reelection to the NC Supreme Court — NC Newsline · Progressive-leaning; States Newsroom nonprofit funded largely by progressive donors
- Stein, legislative leaders to clash in top NC court on Nov. 10 — Carolina Journal · Conservative; John Locke Foundation
- Appeals Court favors lawmakers over Stein in judicial, utilities case — Carolina Journal · Conservative; John Locke Foundation
- Briner drops Utilities Commission appointment appeal to top NC court — Carolina Journal · Conservative; John Locke Foundation
- Duke Energy rate hikes affirmed by Supreme Court — The Center Square · Right-leaning; Franklin News Foundation
- Amid financial conflicts and recusal concerns, NC Supreme Court upholds Duke Energy rate hike — Energy and Policy Institute · Left-leaning utility-watchdog advocacy group critical of utility influence
- Court Rules For Duke Rate Hikes — NC League of Conservation Voters · Environmental advocacy group that endorses Democratic candidates
- NC Supreme Court upholds Duke Energy rate increase from 2023, which charges eastern and western NC residents differently — CBS17 · U.S. center; commercial Raleigh broadcaster
- Buying Time 2026 - North Carolina — Brennan Center for Justice · Left-leaning legal think tank (NYU-affiliated); tracks judicial campaign spending
- North Carolina Supreme Court race on Nov. 3 could shape 2028 majority — Ballotpedia News · Nonpartisan election-data nonprofit (Lucy Burns Institute)
- North Carolina's 2026 election: Roy Cooper, Jamie Ager, Anita Earls win — Cardinal & Pine · Democratic-aligned; part of Courier Newsroom
- State Rep. Sarah Stevens, running for NC Supreme Court, resigns her seat — WRAL · U.S. center; commercial Raleigh broadcaster
- NC Supreme Court race could shape battle for court majority in 2028 — Carolina Journal · Conservative; John Locke Foundation
- Stein, lawmakers submit final words in showdown at top NC court — Carolina Journal · Conservative; John Locke Foundation
- Treasurer Briner Applauds N.C. Court of Appeals Decision Affirming Utilities Commission Appointment — N.C. Department of State Treasurer · Official government statement from a Republican elected official who is a party to the dispute
- State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Duke Energy Progress LLC (2026) — FindLaw (N.C. Supreme Court opinion) · Primary source; court opinion
- NC Supreme Court takes two cases pitting Stein against top lawmakers — Carolina Journal · Conservative; John Locke Foundation