- Hello, I'm Kelly McCullen.

Coming up, our interviews with the 2026 Democratic and Republican candidates for the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Seats two and three.

Next.

- Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you, who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.

♪ - The 2026 Judicial Candidates Forum is made possible by a partnership between PBS North Carolina and the North Carolina Bar Association.

♪ - Joining us is one of the nominees for the North Carolina Court of Appeals in seat two.

It's Democratic candidate Tobias "Toby" Hampson.

That's how the name will be printed on the ballot.

Republican candidate George Cooper Bell, supposed to be here but had a scheduling conflict.

But thank you, Judge Hampson, for sitting down with us for this brief conversation about yourself and your campaign.

- Well, thank you.

I'm looking forward to it.

- You're the incumbent on the Court of Appeals.

That's what most folks will know.

They'll know that about you.

But what is it about Judge Hampson that prepared you for the Court of Appeals but also prepares you to stay if the voters keep you there?

- Well, you know, I grew up as a lawyer, kind of in the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

I served as a law clerk for three judges as my first job right out of law school.

I clerked for Eddie Green, Wanda Bryant and Bob Hunter.

Mountain Bob, if you know the difference.

Where I really started to really learn and appreciate the work of the Court of Appeals.

It really is the workhorse of the North Carolina appellate courts.

You know, most cases that come up on appeal end in the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

They don't necessarily go up to the state supreme court.

But after clerking at the court, I went into private practice in Raleigh where I really focused my career on handling appeals in the North Carolina Court of Appeals and North Carolina State Supreme Court.

You know, I'm certified as a specialist in handling appeals by the North Carolina State Bar.

During my time in practice, I think I handle just about every kind of case that the North Carolina Court of Appeals hears.

Everything from representing parents whose parental rights were at risk and needed appointed attorneys to representing injured workers, injured children, small businesses, even municipalities in appeals to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

So I think I really brought a lot of hands on Court of Appeals experience when I was first elected in 2018.

Since I've been on the court, I've authored over 400 majority opinions, most of which are unanimous, most of which are bipartisan.

So I'm really proud of the work that I've done on the Court of Appeals.

I really love the work of the Court of Appeals.

- You know, we know Supreme Court.

We know that those justices, they seem to have strong political opinions at times in different states.

And, you know, it's all about the headlines.

But down at that appeals court level, it too is partisan.

There's Democrat, Republicans running.

But why is it the workhorse?

And why doesn't partisanship squeeze into the process?

- You know, I feel really fortunate that at the Court of Appeals, we've been able to maintain a really high degree of collegiality, even in the midst of partisan times, partisan elections.

And I think a lot of that is because we have to get the work done.

You know, we don't have the luxury of packing up and going home without passing a budget, say.

We have to get cases decided for the people of North Carolina.

And a lot of those issues are issues that impact more of the day-to-day lives of North Carolina.

So certainly we hear criminal justice cases, criminal cases and appeals from DUIs to first degree murder, on the civil side, the whole gamut.

So a lot of times we are able to work together and find a level of consensus on the courts in order to get that decision out for the people of North Carolina.

- Take me back to eighth grade, you know, civics lesson.

Supreme Court, we know what they do.

Lower Court, Superior District Court, you know, you face the judge with all your problems at the local level.

But what do you actually do in the Court of Appeals?

What is its core function as you see it?

- Yeah, the core function of the Court of Appeals is to ensure that the law is being applied consistently and fairly in all 100 counties in North Carolina so that everybody is getting a fair shake.

Right.

We're looking to see if the law was properly interpreted and applied in people's cases according to the facts of that case.

So we're really just looking to see if any mistakes were made as a matter of law in the trial court.

- So I had a case not go my way.

I think something at the county court level was not right.

Then we would go to the appeals court.

- In almost all cases.

Your appeal right of appeal is to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

That's right.

- What are the two most important qualities you think should reside within a judge on that Court of Appeals?

Don't be biased by any means, but there there has to be others there that you admire something about.

What two things do you admire most?

- I admire thoughtfulness in a judge.

A judge that's going to treat the both parties with respect, treat both arguments with respect and a level of seriousness and thoughtfulness.

I don't want to sound too much like Ted Lasso, but this may be more curious than judgmental as they approach their role in a case.

But the second quality I look for is someone that's willing to make a hard decision and make a hard principle decision based on the law and the facts before them.

So those are two qualities I really, really admire.

- This is a one on one.

It's a little bit different than having an opponent sitting across from you.

But I'll say as a judge coming in, you're a human being.

Are there cases that any judge goes into thinking they might know how they're going to judge beforehand?

How do you suppress that to be or do you suppress the idea that you have an opinion and go neutral into everything you hear?

- Well, I think each one of us brings our own experience and background.

Again, that's one of the beautiful things about the Court of Appeals is we all have different experiences that we've had in practice or as trial judges or as different kinds of lawyers that we bring to the bench.

So I think we all we bring that experience and knowledge to the bench.

But I think because of that experience and knowledge, a lot of times we're able to come in with a more open mind to hear those cases and weigh the arguments.

And certainly for me, having been on the other side of that podium, making those arguments, you know, it's really important to me to treat all the parties that come before us with a high level of respect, both between the bench, but also between bench and bar and approach those cases seriously and fairly.

- When you're sitting on this panel here with these three judge panels, you know, it sounds very, very fancy in front of our stories that we do.

But when you're hearing a case, is it three judges or however many judges are assigned and you go to your own offices, you come out with three distinct opinions or do you collaborate with each other and try to reach consensus as a unit of the judiciary?

- No.

So what happens is after we hear the argument as the three judges, we go into conference, you go into a conference room and we sit down and we kind of give our preliminary votes the way we think the case should be decided.

The case is then assigned to one of the judges to author.

The judge will author that opinion and circulate a draft to the other judges.

And we can either concur in the opinion.

We can always suggest revisions or edits or we could write a separate concurrence saying I agree with the result, but I don't agree with how you get there.

- How independent is the judiciary in North Carolina now top to bottom now that we have a few cycles in of partisanship?

I would say overt public partisanship being injected into the races.

- You know, I think it's a little bit of a tough question to answer.

I think on a day to day basis in the courts, I think our courts remain highly independent.

You know, I certainly think what we're seeing at the trial court level, the court of appeals level, and frankly, even at the state Supreme Court level, I think we see the cases where there's a lot of division, but there are cases where even that court is able to decide cases in unanimous fashion or with a bipartisan majority.

So I think there is a high level of independence on the court.

I think we do have to be wary of that independence being eroded because of partisanship being injected.

I think we do need courts that are willing to stand up to the other two political branches of government and serve as a check and balance on those.

And I think when we do that, that's how we help maintain and restore public confidence in our judiciary, which is really where we draw the source of our power.

- You know, we've had some other interviewed, recorded interviews for this campaign, but I have noticed judges, every judge has said they respect, they want to uphold the Constitution of the state and of the United States.

But there's different ways in the way they see, they interpret and uphold the standards of the Constitution.

How do you view the Constitution?

- Yeah, well, you know, the Constitution, both state and federal, to me is it really provides the fundamental basis, the underlying foundation for everything we do as judiciary, everything we do as democracy, everything we do as a government.

And for me, you know, it's funny, just thinking about another forum where I was asked, somebody said, well, what's your position on flock cameras?

And of course, I can't take a position on flock cameras because those are exactly the kinds of issues that are going to come before our courts potentially down the road.

But I thought to myself, you know, the question was, what did the framers think about flock cameras?

And I said, well, you know, framers wouldn't have even thought about flock cameras, you know, and license plate readers.

They wouldn't have even thought about license plates.

But the sort of the brilliance and the resilience of our Constitution is it's given us those foundational blocks that we can build from, that we can use to interpret into modern situations with evolving technology, evolving understanding of society, evolving understanding of what it means to take part in society.

And so that's how I kind of view the Constitution.

You always go back to the basics of the Constitution, but you can apply it in a modern world in a way that makes sense in real lives.

- So you think that the Constitution can breathe just a bit, can be modernized in thought using the standards?

Because we've had judges say what's printed is what you follow.

- Well, and you know, there's probably not a judge out there that doesn't consider themselves an originalist really at the end of the day.

But I think it is true that our job as judges is to take those foundational principles and apply them in a modern world.

- I have to ask you, who are some of your judicial heroes?

People you've looked up to either in myth or in history or contemporary?

- You know, I of course look very much up to the judges that I clerked for, mentored me, Judge Green, Judge Bryant, Judge Hunter and so many other judges on our state appellate courts.

But one kind of maybe mythical hero, not mythical, he was real, but one real hero, I always think back to Chief Justice John Marshall on our United States Supreme Court.

And part of that is because he became Chief Justice at a really hyper-partisan time in our country's history.

You know, he was a Federalist appointed against the Jeffersonian Republicans, right?

That was Marbury v. Madison.

And the thing that I admire about that is he was able to build so much consensus on the court and create a court that established public trust in our United States Supreme Court, strengthened the underpinnings of our United States Constitution and did it in a manner that showed judicial restraint while also judicial authority.

- Is it fair to attack a court when it doesn't rule in the way that you think politically?

Because we see both sides doing it.

Republicans and Democrats both attack higher courts.

It doesn't go their way, pack the court and get rid of it.

- You know, I think it's fair to criticize judicial decisions and criticize courts.

I think it's absolutely fair.

Sometimes the manner of criticism and the individual criticisms may be unfair.

But I do not believe our work is above scrutiny.

- If folks want to learn more about your campaign, how can they do that online or through newsletters or what?

Do you have an easy way to reach you?

- Yes.

You can reach me through my website at JudgeTobyHampson.com.

You can also find me on social media.

I'm on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok these days.

So there are lots of ways you can reach us.

- What is the role of a judge on social media?

I have to ask that because you're a public figure, but also you have to be very guarded, I would think.

- A little bit.

You know, one of the things I've enjoyed doing, I enjoy cooking.

And so I've got a few posts where I'm basically cooking dinner for the family or cooking a meal, but also talking a little bit about the courts.

- So on the ballot, Tobias Toby Hampson, the Democratic incumbent in this case for the Court of Appeals will be seat two on the ballot.

I always appreciate any candidate willing to drive out to sit in our studio for a conversation.

And I thank you.

I appreciate all the time you've given us.

- Well, thank you.

I appreciate it.

- Good luck on the trail.

- Thank you.

- In-person early voting in North Carolina begins October 15th and ends October 31st.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3rd.

♪ - Joining us now are the candidates for North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Seat number three, Democratic candidate Christine Marie Walczyk and Republican candidate Craig Collins.

Thank you both for agreeing to appear on set and have a conversation about the race, especially that seat three race.

- Thanks for having us.

- Thank you for being here.

- So we did a flip of the coin and it turns out you will answer the first question.

You will get the last word, Ms.

Walczyk.

We'll start.

This is an easy question.

Tell us about your qualifications, Mr.

Collins, and why you're seeking a Court of Appeals seat in 2026.

- Sure.

I've spent time as a prosecutor, private attorney, district court judge and a superior court judge.

I think the cumulative impact of those four experiences has me ready to take the next step and move on to the Court of Appeals.

And I want to make sure that we have judges who have understood the proper role of the trial court and to make sure that we give clear cut rules for the trial courts.

And that's my goal along with make sure that we're protecting our Constitution at every step of the way.

- Ms.

Walczyk, your qualifications and why is the seat right for you?

- Thank you.

Well, thanks for having us here.

I have been working for the last two decades as a district court judge in Wake County, our state's largest county.

I have been hearing all the kinds of cases that they hear at the Court of Appeals.

And in that role, I was nominated for leadership positions by four different chief judges, both Democrat and Republican.

So I was lead family court judge for many years, and I'm currently our general civil lead judge.

And, you know, I have a record of enforcing and protecting due process in my courtroom.

And before I was a judge, I owned my own law firm.

So I was a small business owner for over a decade.

We started that firm in the 90s because we wanted the freedom to represent the little guy and be a voice for the marginalized.

And so we typically represented employees, small family run businesses, and we did some indigent defense work.

I'm running because I believe in the rule of law.

I think we need a stronger, balanced, independent court that's going to, you know, protect constitutional freedoms of the people and put people over partisan agendas.

- Family court for you, running your own small law firm.

Pick out a few unique experiences or skills.

What is it about that particular legal experience that makes you the right fit for court of appeals?

- Well, my district court role, you know, we have to make difficult decisions in the public eye.

So when I issue a decision, I am looking in the face of the parties that are in that case, and I'm explaining to them why I'm doing what I'm doing.

We have to see the gravity and the humanity of these cases.

I hope to bring that with me to the court of appeals, where they're really just looking at a cold record and reading transcripts.

I want to remember the gravity and the importance of these cases, that there is a face to every case.

- And Mr.

Collins, a superior court judge now, assistant district attorney prosecutor.

Tell me about that unique experience.

It's not family court per se, but what is it about that line of legal work that makes you prepared?

- Well, we both have the experience of private practice.

We both did that.

We both have the experience of district court, so I've been a district court judge as well, and so we've each handled those.

But being a prosecutor and a superior court judge means I've also had the high level civil lawsuits, along with felony trials up through drug traffickers, rapists, murderers.

The cases that take a lot of time in the court of appeals, a large bulk of the cases that they hear are handled in superior court.

And so, again, we both share the domestic issues.

We both share the district court cases, but I also have the superior court level, both as a judge and as prosecutor and private attorney.

- And Ms.

Walczyk, what do you see as the role or function of the intermediate court of appeals?

What is this role between the Supreme Court and the lower courts in North Carolina, in your opinion?

- So, well, the first thing I would say about that is I think there's a misconception about the court of appeals in that it's an intermediate level court, that it might not be as important as the Supreme Court.

And in 2023, they eliminated the automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court if there's a dissent.

And so, I would say 80 to 90 percent of the cases that come through the court of appeals, that is going to be the court of last resort.

So, to me, it's extremely important.

I also think that judges, you know, we have an obligation.

We don't write laws.

We don't write policies or budgeting decisions.

But if the other two political branches are not meeting their constitutional obligations or if they are running afoul of the Constitution, then it is our job to make sure that there's constitutional compliance.

- How do you view the role of the court of appeals in North Carolina?

- Well, the primary concern or need is to just make sure that the trial judge has got it right.

So, trial judges are making decisions on the fly throughout a trial with -- in real time during a trial.

And the court of appeals is able to take a slower look at it afterwards and make sure that any trial was done fairly.

Because the last thing we want are these cases to be resolved when the Constitution wasn't followed, when the statutes weren't followed properly, and make sure that it finds a fact were done properly.

And so, again, we don't want someone sitting in prison on some serious felony without some sort of review to make sure the trial judge got it right.

And so, that's the biggest role of the appellate court at that point.

- And all the judges you've seen go through the court of appeals in your career, what are two qualities when you look at someone at a higher court level, you go, those are qualities that every judge should have?

- I think the number one issue is simply following the Constitution as written.

I think being able to read the Constitution and follow it, not read it as you wish it to be, not read it as you would have written it if you were the one writing it.

The last thing we need are judges who will put their own policy beliefs into their court orders or amend the Constitution and circumventing the amendment process.

That's the biggest issue.

And a judge willing to listen to all the arguments before making decisions, but being rigid on what the Constitution requires.

- And I'll ask the same question of you.

A couple of qualities that you've looked at other judges that you might admire and go, that's really what it takes.

- So, well, first and foremost, you have to be an extremely hard worker.

You have to be a good writer, be able to write well-reasoned, clear opinions that give guidance to the trial judges around the state and to the public.

But other than that, I would say, first of all, moral courage and integrity.

You need to be able to make difficult decisions in the public eye that might not be well-liked by the public at times.

And you need to have integrity.

You need to follow the oath of office and the ethical standards that we set for ourselves.

And then the second thing I would say is humility.

You know, as judges, we have a life of learning the law.

It's a dynamic area.

And we have to be able to collaborate with other judges and we have to be able to, you know, let the public know that we're serving them.

And so, this requires humility.

We have to be active listeners.

And so, I would say integrity, moral courage and humility.

- Of all those, which taught you the most when you were practicing law, when you were at the lower court level, which ones have you leaned on the most and found the most success?

- Well, my integrity is always paramount.

I mean, everything I do in this election and in my job and in my personal life is to increase public trust and confidence in the judiciary.

I think that the public has to, you know, our sole source of power and authority comes from the public's belief in the institution.

And when we lose that trust, we're weakened as a system.

And I don't think that weakened courts are able to stop abuses of power.

I don't think they're able to protect individual liberties or defend our democracy.

So, my goal is to build a stronger court that has the public's trust.

- I want to ask you the same question.

As a prosecutor and come climbing the ranks, what qualities did you maybe underestimate and went, wow, those are really good skills to have, made you a better attorney and a better judge?

- Well, a judge has to make difficult decisions that don't always match up to what they wanted the result to be.

At the times, the law or the Constitution says something clearly that you wouldn't have made the decision.

So, the judges I've respected the most have the character and the courage to stand up to the political pressures, the societal pressures, and sometimes their own internal pressures to make decisions different than what the law requires.

A judge has to be willing to set aside those personal policy beliefs, those personal wishes, and enter the orders that are required under the law.

- What is your opinion of an independent judiciary in an era where you can run as partisan, you both are running with political affiliation, but voters also expect to know where a judge stands in the political party before you ever reach the bench?

- Well, the important thing is that the politics of the people appearing in front of us should never matter.

So, the issues shouldn't matter of Republican, Democrat.

The laws aren't Republican or Democrat.

The law is what the law is, and the Constitution is what it is.

I think often the difference between a constitutionalist candidate and an activist candidate is that the constitutionalist will follow the Constitution rigidly and without exception, whereas an activist will be more inclined to amend the law or Constitution through court order and not simply follow the written words as they are.

- Ms.

Walczyk , what do you make of that opinion of the "some will read it as written and nothing more, some will see breathing room within the Constitution for interpretation"?

- Well, first I'd like to say I don't subscribe to any singular interpretive approach.

I think those labels are used by other people to sort of pigeonhole us.

If you're asking what my judicial philosophy is, I mean, first of all, I believe in precedent.

I respect precedent.

I believe in judicial restraint.

I think judges should operate with a scalpel and not a chainsaw.

And I agree that your race, your gender, your religion, your socioeconomic situation, none of those things should impact the outcome of the case.

But I just, you know, I don't - I can't subscribe to the originalist idea where we're tied to the framers that are, you know, wrote a document in the 1700s when African Americans and women had no rights.

I think that judges are required to apply the law to real world situations.

And those framers had no concept of flock cameras or drones or cars for that matter.

And so we're required to apply the Constitution and our laws to real world situations.

And so I don't subscribe to any singular interpretive approach, but I just try to apply the law faithfully.

I pay attention to the words, the purpose of the words, the practical consequences of the words, and we make the best decisions we can.

- I do see a small philosophical difference here between you two, but I'll ask you, isn't she right?

The founding fathers couldn't have known what a flock camera was or a drone.

What do you make of her comments to say the document needs to breathe a bit to modernize?

- We have an amendment process.

In fact, on this ballot alone, we have three opportunities to amend the Constitution as the Constitution gives us that power.

It should never be done in what most people consider a back room.

We call it chambers.

And so the Constitution says what it says.

We don't get to just make the amendments.

And quite honestly, that is the huge philosophical difference here of I believe the Constitution means what it says.

I think judges should follow it and judges should never amend that Constitution through court order.

There is a process to do that.

And it's just it's not intended to be by the courts.

And when the courts start writing amendments to the Constitution, we're writing policy through their decisions.

We have a runaway court and a true constitutional crisis on our hands.

- Take 30 seconds.

Tell folks why they should vote for you.

- I believe the Constitution means what it says.

I'll always follow it.

I will never amend it to fit some political agenda.

I think we have to stand up for our communities.

We need to stand on the side of the rule of law, accountability and justice.

And if you elect me, that I'll work tirelessly to defend our Constitution, protect our constitutional rights and work against those who want to do us harm, whether that's through violence out on the streets or in our courtroom by erasing, rewriting our Constitution.

- Ms.

Walczyk, same last word to you as as we unveiled on the coin flip.

Why should folks support your campaign?

- So I believe in the rule of law.

And you've probably heard about the analogy of the rule of law like a three legged stool with each one of the legs being one of the branches.

And I believe that if you have a broken or loose leg or you have two of the legs really close together, then the stool goes over.

So I'm fighting for a more balanced and a stronger court that's going to keep the other two political branches in check.

I want an independent court that's free from the influence of politicians and partisan agendas.

And I am endorsed by a wide group of organizations that, you know, represent teachers, social workers, grassroots organizations, all of those young people and lots and lots of judges who've done this job before.

- And that's Republican Craig Collins, Democrat Christine Walczyk.

Thank you so much for your time and the conversation.

- Thank you.

- Thank you.

♪ - The 2026 Judicial Candidates Forum is made possible by a partnership between PBS North Carolina and the North Carolina Bar Association.

♪ - Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you, who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.