Welcome And Ballot Basics

Amanda Benbow Lunn 0:09

Hello friends, welcome back to the NC Deep Dive. I am your host, Amanda Benbow Lunn, and this episode features one of our candidate conversations for the 2026 general election. By my best accounting, it looks like we have 18 contested races with 46 candidates in Southern Wake County, specifically running in Holly Springs and Fuquay Varina. There are a few other races that have only one candidate running, but we will not be covering them with the NCDeep dive this go round. Of course, the races on your particular ballot will vary based on your address and the specific districts your residents calls within. You can always find your jurisdictions and eventually your sample ballot by searching NC voter search made available by the NC State Board of Elections. Once you get to the page, you'll fill out your information. It will populate with all those who share your name and the information you provided. You'll scroll until you find yours, you can click on it, verify that it is indeed your name and address, and then you can scroll down to the appropriate sections. Since there are so many races, your ballot will likely be front and back. So make sure you do remember to flip it over. And you'll want to keep in mind that if your time is short, you can see each episode's transcript at www.ncdeepdive.com, or you can search the episode's chapter titles for the particular questions that we're asking. You can pick and choose which ones are important to you and you can compare them between the different candidates if that's what it's about. For this episode, we are delving into the North Carolina Court of Appeals for seat number three. There are two candidates running, and you will have your choice of one of them. The two candidates are Christine Walczyk, who is affiliated with the Democratic Party, and Craig Collins, who is affiliated with the Republican Party. Without further ado, my friends, let's dive in.

Meet Christine Walczyk: Introduction, Why, & Experience

Amanda Benbow Lunn 2:09

On this episode, I am pleased to be speaking with Christine Walczyk, who is running for the North Carolina Court of Appeals for seat three. Welcome, Christine. Thank you. Take a moment and introduce yourself, and then you can go into why you are running for this office and what experiences have prepared you to serve in this role.

Christine Walczyk 2:30

Great. Well, thanks for having me. I was born in Raleigh. My father moved around, so I spent a lot of my childhood in South Florida. And I came back here to go to law school at Carolina. I have an undergraduate degree from Boston College in management and finance. And I've been working in Wake County now as a trial judge for 19 years. Before I came to the bench, I owned a law firm with Senator Lisa Grafstein. And we started that firm in the 90s because, you know, we didn't see ourselves as big corporate attorneys. We just wanted the freedom to represent the little guy. And so for over a decade, we were representing employees and small family-run businesses. We also did some indigent defense work. I'm going to date myself, but this was before we had a public defender. So we did indigent defense work. You would get on a list and we represented juveniles and adults. So that's a little bit about my background. The second part of the question, sort of why am I running? Well, how it came about was that last year I got a phone call from Judge Allegra Collins, who's a friend of mine, and she told me she wasn't going to run for seat three on the Court of Appeals. And I did a lot of soul searching about whether this was something that I could do. And I had just turned 54 last year. I lost my father at age 54 to a brain tumor. So I was going through some things about that. And I really started thinking, you know, do I want to coast into retirement or do I want to fight for the things that I believe in? And I like Brene Brown, and I could just hear her in my head saying, you have to choose courage over comfort, and you have to just get in the arena and do your thing. And so, you know, that's sort of why I made the decision to run. But the real why is just in the last five or 10 years, I've just been increasingly concerned about the public's loss of trust in the judiciary, the attacks on the rule of law, politicization of the courts, and all these things. I'm afraid for our court system and our democracy. And so I really feel like we need skilled and experienced judges who are going to safeguard our constitutional freedoms. That's why I decided to run. And I think that I'm someone who's got the skill to do it. I've got the qualifications, but I also really truly believe in the rule of law and equal access to justice and all these things. And I want to bring those things with me to the court.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 4:35

Perfect. How

How The Court Of Appeals Works

Amanda Benbow Lunn 4:36

is the Court of Appeals different from other courts?

Christine Walczyk 4:39

So the Court of Appeals is our intermediate level appellate court. And what I do now is I'm a trial judge. So every day I have trials and it can be civil cases, criminal cases. And if I make a mistake or if somebody's not happy with my decision, they can appeal it. And that's where they would go to the Court of Appeals. And we've got two levels of appellate courts here in North Carolina. We've got the Supreme Court, there's seven justices on that court, and they sit all together to make decisions. And the Court of Appeals has 15 judges on it. They sit in panels of three. So you don't sit all together typically. You can, you can sit on banc, but that almost never happens. And so, you know, the difference, I guess I would say, is that first of all, they're not trying cases, they're reviewing a cold record to determine if there's any errors of law. But they make like everything that people care about, whether it be the environment, workers' rights, education, healthcare, voting, all of those things go through the court of appeals. And in 2023, the legislature eliminated the automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court. So what that means now is for many, many people, the Court of Appeals is the court of last resort and the case stops there. And a lot of people don't know that. The Supreme Court is extremely important. And there are certain kinds of cases that skip over the Court of Appeals and go directly to the Supreme Court, like death penalty cases or business court cases. But almost everything goes through the Court of Appeals. And now for you know, this number is a made-up number, but you know, a large portion, I was gonna say 70 to 80 percent, but I I can't say that actually. Um, a large portion of the cases are gonna stop in the Court of Appeals. Okay.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 6:10

What

What Voters Misunderstand about the Appellate Court

Amanda Benbow Lunn 6:11

do you believe voters might misunderstand about the appellate court?

Christine Walczyk 6:14

Well, I mean, I think people just don't know anything about our courts in general. And I think this is part of the fault of judges because I don't think we do a good job of explaining to the public what the courts do. We don't get out there in the community like we should be and and talking about the importance of the courts and why it matters. And, you know, being on the campaign trail, I get a lot of feedback from people. And most people don't understand, you know, they know judges run and a lot of people skip over the judicial races because they don't know who we are, first of all, and they don't really understand how the court impacts them. And what I am trying to do on the campaign trail is really just educate people about why the courts are so important and how they work. You know, there's all these misconceptions about the court. I think that there's some data out there showing that more than 50% of the public feels like judges just rule along party lines. I don't think that's true, but I understand the perception, especially in a place like North Carolina where we run in partisan races. But, you know, there's all different kinds of perceptions about the court. And I think what people need to understand is that, you know, you have a right to choose your representation on the court in North Carolina. You have a right to elect your judges, and so you really have to get to know them, get to know their values, get to know their experience level, so you can make informed choices. And, you know, democracy is a you gotta participate in it. And so I wish people spent more time researching us. And I know it's hard to find information about judges, but we need to be better as judges about talking in the community about the importance of the courts and how it affects people. I mean, in my court, you know, anytime you have a car accident, a custody case, you get charged with a crime, you're being evicted, like all of those things come through my court. And almost all of those things are gonna go to the court of appeals as well. And so when the court of appeals makes the decision, it sets precedent. So all trial judges around the state have to follow their decisions. And so they have a much broader impact on you.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 8:01

Okay.

Biggest Challenge for Those You’d Represent

Amanda Benbow Lunn 8:02

What do you believe is the most important issue or challenge facing the people you would represent?

Christine Walczyk 8:07

Oh, I'm gonna have to give you two answers on that because it's too different from the outside and the inside. For me, the most serious crisis that we're having right now in the court system is the politicization and the extremism that we're starting to see on some of the courts. And I think the judiciary is the cornerstone of our democracy. And I think we have to be independent because we have to be able to serve our purpose of keeping the other two political branches in check to ensure that there is constitutional compliance and what those two branches are supposed to do. And I think the courts are meant to, you know, judges are sort of the guardians of the constitution, the protectors of liberty. And we really have to stand up for this institution and make sure that we don't let sort of these things infect the courts. Because without, you know, I I describe to people the rule of law, which I believe wholeheartedly in the rule of law as sort of a this is a metaphor other people use. I'm not inventing this, but you know, the three-legged stool. And if you've got the three branches as the legs and the rule of law as the seat, you can't have two of the legs too close together or one leg missing because then it falls down. And so it's just extremely important to protect the balance and the independence of the courts. And that's again one of the reasons I'm running. But but another issue, which is totally different from that issue, is just having equal access to the courts. So everybody needs to have equal access to justice. And the problem now is that lawyers are expensive, bringing your case is expensive. And I want to make sure we level the playing field. So justice should not be limited to only the wealthy, right? And and there is also a public perception that courts favor the wealthy. And I don't think they favor the wealthy, but it is just much more difficult if you don't have a qualified lawyer to navigate all the deadlines and all the procedural rules that you have to follow to be heard on the merits. And so one of the things I tried to do was I helped set up the legal support center in Wake County. I'm on their advisory board, and this is an organization in Wake County that matches people up with pro bono attorneys and legal resources. I wish every county had something like that. But I've also spent a lot of time trying to train pro bono attorneys who represent children in custody cases or who represent domestic violence victims. So, you know, this is something that's important to me, but it's also important to the public to be able to have access to the system. And the Court of Appeals is even more expensive and even more, you know, we have places with legal deserts, what I call legal deserts in North Carolina, where there's very few lawyers at all available for people. And, you know, we've the legislature just recently took the IOLTA money away and gave it to criminal defense, which, you know, we need that too. But the interest on the lawyers' accounts was being used to fund things like legal aid and physical legal services and all these different organizations that give people access to justice. And we're losing a lot of that with the defunding

IOLTA Funding And Legal Aid Loss

Christine Walczyk 10:52

of things.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 10:52

Could you explain that just a little bit more for those that don't know what IOLTA is?

Christine Walczyk 10:58

Sure, yeah. So, you know, like if you hire a lawyer and you give them a retainer, or if money comes into a lawyer that's for the benefit of the client, it stays in a bank account. And the lawyers all take that interest and pool it together. And that interest was being used to fund civil, well, all different kinds of programs, but essentially, you know, funding programs that provide legal services or low-cost legal services to people. And they apply for the grants. And I think it's about $15 million that they were using to fund all these programs. And in the most recent, I think it was in the budget, the legislature took $12 million of that and gave it to IDS, which is the organization Indigent Defense Services, which hires lawyers for criminal cases. And so that only left a couple of million, very small amount. And there was also some things put in there. So, like if you are an organization that handles voting rights or immigration, you're no longer eligible to get the grants. So there's a lot of organizations that were relying on that money and were representing people all around the state, and now they don't have those funds coming in anymore. So they're gonna have to get those funds from somewhere else or they're gonna have to close up shop. And so it's causing a problem, it's adding to the problem of the legal deserts where we're just having less and less lawyers to help people, especially in civil cases. I mean, in criminal cases, you have a right to have an attorney. So the state has to provide you an attorney if you're charged in a criminal case. But if you have a civil case, like if you're a domestic violence victim or if you're being evicted from your home, you don't have a right to an attorney. So you either have to hire someone or you have to rely on legal aid.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 12:25

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Priorities & Hopes for Accomplishment

Amanda Benbow Lunn 12:27

If elected, what would you prioritize and what specifically would you hope to accomplish during your term?

Christine Walczyk 12:32

Well, first and foremost, I would be doing the job. You know, you need to make decisions. These are very difficult decisions. You have lots of opinions to write. I think the Court of Appeals is handling over 2,000 cases a year. So there's the work itself. But my priorities, I would say the first priority would be safeguarding people's individual liberties and their constitutional freedoms. That is critical. We have to have judges who are willing to do that. We have to have judges who are true to their oath to protect the constitution and the state constitution and who follow their ethical standards. And with that, I want to bring honesty and integrity to the court. The second thing I would say is strengthening the courts and improving the public's trust and confidence. I want everything that I do to increase the public's trust in the system because I think if we have a strong system, it will be able to stop abuses of power. It will be able to protect our democracy and protect our individual liberties. And the attacks on the court system, the politicization of the court system, all of these things are leading to the decrease in the public's trust, which is making our court system weaker and in my opinion, less able to do what it is supposed to do, which is ensure constitutional compliance from the other two branches and stop abuses of power. And then the third thing, I've already talked about this, but I would say equal access to justice. I want to continue my work on leveling the playing field for self-represented persons. And I want to make sure that people who come through the Court of Appeals and people all around the state have the same access, sort of regardless of what kind of funds they have or what their socioeconomic situation is.

Rights Conflicts And Judicial Restraint

Amanda Benbow Lunn 13:59

How would an appellate court approach cases involving competing constitutional rights?

Christine Walczyk 14:05

So you're gonna have to explain that question a little more. Like, so there's three judges on the panel, and one of the problems we have as trial judges is sometimes there's some inconsistencies. If you have two different panels deciding the same issue, maybe this is what you're asking me. And you might get one decision that says one thing and one decision that says something else, and we have to follow both decisions. And so it's really important for me to have judges that write clear decisions and well-reasoned decisions because they're really creating a map and an instructional guideline for all of the trial judges in the state. I mean, we look to those opinions to see what the law is and what they're telling us the tests are and the constitutional tests and those kinds of things. And so you can't have those inconsistencies because it causes confusion and it's not good for anybody. But I mean, I'm not really sure other than that, what you're asking me specifically. I mean, if you can give me more detail, I'm happy to answer it.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 14:54

So I think if perhaps the two sides have competing constitutional uh rights, like how do you decide who has uh more rights per se, or which path would you follow? Is it a precedent of kind of the cases that have come before? Like how I feel like sometimes that there are just competing variables that you have to consider and how do you kind of line those up to make your decisions?

Christine Walczyk 15:23

Yeah, okay. I understand that better. So obviously there's sometimes where there's cases of first impression, but in most cases, we have law given to us by prior courts. And I'm a believer in judicial restraint. So I think judges should use a lot of caution before they go against precedent or reverse a case that's, you know, something that's already been decided. For a safe and peaceful society, we need consistency. People need to understand what the law is so they can follow the law. And trial judges need to do the same thing. We need to understand what the law is. You know, obviously there will be some cases where there's two parties in a case and they both have legal rights. But usually, and I'm trying to think of an example to give you, but usually there's sort of a test that's set out in the law. Like here's what you're gonna look at. You know, if you're talking about whether a police officer used excessive force, for example, you know, you're gonna have a test and you're gonna go through and say, well, what would a reasonable person do in this situation? And you can apply the law to the facts that you've got. And that's what we're doing. We're looking at these tests, you know, we're applying the law as it's been written before to the application of the new facts that we have. But obviously, you know, different judges are gonna interpret facts and, you know, look at the facts a different way. First of all, you might have one judge that says, well, this is what I heard in the trial, and you might find another judge that says, well, this is what I heard in the trial. And, you know, as a trial judge, we have a tremendous amount of discretion. And it's really our job to evaluate the credibility of all the witnesses. We get to see their faces, we get to see, you know, the looks that they give while they're testifying. And so, you know, I think Court of Appeals judges should give trial judges a lot of deference. And I don't think they should be, you know, redeciding the facts, but it's a balancing test, I guess is what I'm trying to say. You know, what we're doing is we're taking the law and we're applying them to the facts in front of us. And there's obviously going to be times where we're going to reverse cases. And the example I always give everybody is Brown versus Board of Education. You know, Plessy versus Ferguson said that school segregation was okay. And then, you know, 50 some odd years later, we had Brown versus Board of Education that realized, you know, this is not, it's not constitutionally compliant to have everything separate. And so it was reversed. And that is going to happen. I mean, we're gonna have times where things get reversed. But as a general rule, just because a court changes power, we shouldn't be reopening old cases and making new decisions. That's not good for consistency, it's not good for people's trust in the judiciary.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 17:38

Okay.

Applying the Law versus Creating New Law

Amanda Benbow Lunn 17:39

How should an appellate judge distinguish between applying the law and creating new law?

Christine Walczyk 17:44

So I don't believe we create new law unless it's a case of first impression. So there's something that comes before us, an issue that has not come up in the past. And sometimes there's no prior decision that gives you guidance. And so, you know, obviously the ultimate, the law of the land, the ultimate guidance is our federal constitution and then our state constitution, and then the laws that are passed by the General Assembly. I mean, they are responsible for passing laws, writing policy. As a general rule, judges don't do that. What our role is, is when somebody brings a dispute to us, you know, if there's an allegation in that dispute that somebody is not meeting their constitutional obligations or they have violated the constitution in some way, then we can ensure constitutional compliance. But in general, we are not writing laws. I mean, obviously, if we make a decision that interprets the constitution, that is law. That's what we do. We have the power of judicial review, but you know, the primary task of creating the laws and writing the policy and making the budgeting decisions, that's with the General Assembly.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 18:46

Okay.

The Role of Precedent

Amanda Benbow Lunn 18:47

What role should precedent play in your decisions?

Christine Walczyk 18:50

I mean, I think I've said this already, but I am a true believer in judicial restraint. I believe we should follow precedent. I think it's important. I think it's important for society to understand what our law is. And it is not good to have a court just keep reopening decisions and going back and forth on things just because, you know, the court has changed hands in the sense that somebody else is in control. But again, there are going to be times over the course of history where we evolve. And, you know, you have to, you know, the constitution, it's interesting because I, you know, I hear a lot of the um conservative judges say things like, you know, the constitution has words, those words never change. You have to look at the framers' intent. And I don't really subscribe to that primarily because, you know, they could not have ever envisioned the kind of technology that we have, the kind of social constructs that we have, the kinds of questions that we are answering. And the example I always give everybody is if you look at the Fourth Amendment, you know, you have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Well, I don't think I'm going to look at what the framers intended if I'm making a decision about whether air tags or drones or these things. I mean, they could not have envisioned those things. And so, you know, we really have to apply the law to our current situations and our real world issues. That's what judges have to do.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 20:06

What

Impartiality Defined in Practice

Amanda Benbow Lunn 20:07

does impartiality mean in practice?

Christine Walczyk 20:09

I think it means first and foremost that everybody gets a fair hearing. You know, your race, your gender, your political views, your socioeconomic situation, your sexual preference, none of those things should affect the outcome of the case. I think it means everybody gets to feel heard and respected and safe in your courtroom and you make decisions based on the law, not on your personal feelings, not on your political agendas. You follow what the law is, and that's the answer.

Managing Bias When Interpreting Law

Amanda Benbow Lunn 20:40

How do you prevent personal beliefs from influencing your interpretation of the law?

Christine Walczyk 20:45

Well, I mean, we're all human beings, okay? We all have experiences, and you're going to take those experiences with you in some way. I think it's really important for judges to try to remain intentional and disciplined in figuring out what your own implicit biases are and making sure you are sort of disregarding those biases and just continuing to just apply the law. And, you know, I've taken some classes on this, including there's a class at Duke called Justice Unbound, and it talked about our duty as judges to address inequality or bias or, you know, and I feel like we should be studying these things and making sure that we are doing our best to not let personal views or our personal experiences affect us. And there's all kinds of data and research out there about that, but I can't really explain how you do it, but you just have to really make sure you're checking yourself on a regular basis.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 21:35

How

Approach to the Responsibilities and Decision-Making Authority of this Office

Amanda Benbow Lunn 21:36

would you approach the responsibilities and the decision-making authority of this particular office?

Christine Walczyk 21:41

Well, I mean, I've been a trial judge for 19 years. What that means is I've been making really difficult and really unpopular decisions. I mean, I was in family court for 13 years, and uh these are high conflict cases. If people could have resolved them, they would have been resolved long before they came to me. And so, you know, all of the decisions that we make. As a trial judge, are transformative decisions for people. It's the most important thing that will ever happen in their life in most cases. You know, if it's a custody case, if they're being evicted, if they're being they've been charged with a serious crime, but I have to look them in the eye and give them my decision. And, you know, it's a very difficult thing to do. It is extremely difficult to be a trial judge. And so I want to bring that with me to the Court of Appeals because at the Court of Appeals, they're reading paper. You know, the litigants aren't usually in front of them. There is oral arguments, but it's not often. And in most of those cases, it's just the attorneys making the arguments. You don't always have the litigants there in front of you. And when you're reviewing what they call the cold record and reading through these things, I want to remember just how important each of these cases are and remember the people's faces and remember, you know, the humanity of it. Um and make sure that I'm not just getting lost in reading documents. And because it's just, you know, for the people whose case it is, it is the most important thing that will ever happen in their life. And I'm aware, you know, as a trial judge, I have a tremendous amount of discretion, tremendous amount. I mean, for custody, for example, I can do almost, you know, as long as it's in the best interest of the child, I can do whatever kind of schedule I want to do. And so we just have a tremendous amount of discretion. Now, Court of Appeals judges, they sit in panels of three. So they have to collaborate a little bit more. They don't get to make the decision all by themselves. So in some ways, they have a little bit less discretion. Um, but they have a much larger impact because their decisions affect the whole state, not just those people that are involved in the case. So I'm aware it's an extremely important position. My decisions are going to affect a the whole state. Um, and I I take it very seriously. And, you know, I just plan to do my best to write clear and well-reasoned decisions, to give timely and efficient decisions, and to, you know, do the best that I can in this position.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 23:51

All right.

Limits of Judicial Power in Appellate Court

Amanda Benbow Lunn 23:52

What do you believe voters should understand about the limits of an appellate judge's authority?

Christine Walczyk 23:57

I mean, I think there's in a state like North Carolina that does partisan elections, I think there's a lot of expectation on the public that you might do something. Um, you know, they're voting for you. You know, I 've actually on the trail had people say to me, I don't want a fair judge, I want a Democrat, you know, and I understand those feelings, but that's not what we do. We are not politicians. We are sort of guardians. We are the guardians of the law, we're the guardians of the constitution, we protect liberties, we protect the processes that uh protect the innocent, you know, and the victims. I mean, we protect the processes that protect the people that are involved in the system. And so I don't know if there's a misunderstanding. I mean, I can't speak for the public, but I think there's sometimes in a state where you're doing partisan elections, there's some expectation that you're a politician, and we're not. And and in fact, I don't I think we should not be politicians. I think we should be the opposite of politicians.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 24:57

Do you find that like I agree in the idea of that? Do you find that in practice, like overall with the fellow judges? Like, do you do you think that that is a misconception on behalf of uh the people, or do you think that there is some piece to that that might be valid?

Christine Walczyk 25:18

So I will say I have run in partisan races and nonpartisan races. North Carolina is in the minority. I think there's only about seven or eight states in the nation that are doing it the way we are doing it. Everybody else has moved to either nonpartisan or merit selection in some form. And, you know, when I ran in nonpartisan races, I don't feel like I noticed this politicization and this sort of extremism that we have now that is in our society. I mean, our our society is very polarized right now. Maybe it's a function of we didn't have that when we did nonpartisan races, but I feel like when we switched to partisan races, the courts became more partisan in the sense that there are people that are involved in the courts that are trying to politicize the courts for their own partisan gain or to maintain power, whatever it is. And I think if we have a balanced court or a nonpartisan court, we're gonna have more public trust. And I think if you just explain to the public that this is this is supposed to be the independent branch, we are not a political branch, then they'll understand that. And I think most people that I talk to agree with it. And I think people are starting to see the consequence of not having an independent court. And so that's why we need to balance it back out, you know. And I and I tell people if you look at the court of appeals, right now there's 12 Republicans and three Democrats on it. The only three seats up are Democratic seats. And so we could potentially next year have a court with not a single Democrat on it. Now, Democrats are not going to trust that court. They're not gonna feel like they're represented on the court, they're not gonna feel like it's balanced, it's not representative of the population of North Carolina, which has some Democrats in it. Um, and I would say the same thing if it was 15 Democrats, Republicans wouldn't trust it. So that's why I just think it's better for the court system, it's better for the public's perception that we are more independent. And, you know, judges, in my opinion, need to live in the middle. And we have labels on there now. We have to run this way, there's no other way to do it, but we have to live in the middle. I think extremism is dangerous for the courts.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 27:22

Okay. How should an appellate court handle a case where the outcome could have significant consequences for public safety, individual rights, or government authority?

Christine Walczyk 27:32

So, I mean, ideally in a perfect world, you'd handle that case the way you handle every other case. You know, you approach it, you you review all the transcripts, you read the law, you apply the law to the facts that you have, you know, and you make a decision. I try to, when I'm analyzing a case, I think about the words, you know, the law, what it says, but I also think about the purpose of the words and the practical consequences of the words. And I think that's important. And of course, you know, there's a human component to every case. Um, but sometimes as judges, you know, we may not agree with what the law says and the outcome might not be exactly what we agree with. But in general, it's a difficult job. And you want people that take it seriously, you want people that follow their oath to protect the constitution and protect our individual liberties that are guaranteed by the constitution. And you want people that give everybody a fair opportunity to be heard and are open-minded and go in there with the, you know, don't go in there with an agenda, but that go in there hearing both sides, letting both sides be heard and making a good decision.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 28:36

When

Procedures When Outcomes May Have Significant Consequences

Amanda Benbow Lunn 28:37

priorities compete or resources are limited, how would you decide what takes precedence?

Christine Walczyk 28:42

Well, this is a great question for the courts because we are constantly dealing with limited resources. I think we get as a court system less, don't quote me on the exact number, but it's I know it's less than 5% of the budget. Um, and we're always short. We're always short judges, we're always short district attorneys, we're always short public defenders, clerks. You know, we don't have the best software, we don't have the best equipment. And so we as judges are gonna do the best we can with what we have. We have overcrowded jails right now, we have underfunded courthouses, and we have to just keep moving along and providing justice as efficiently as we can, doing the best that we can. But for me, what always takes precedence is allowing folks to have their day in court and be heard and resolve their disputes and protecting constitutional rights and freedoms and increasing the public's trust and confidence in the judiciary. I want everything that I do to increase the public's trust in the system.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 29:38

Okay. Do you know how we compare nationally with funding the courts and such?

Christine Walczyk 29:45

No, that's a great question. Yeah, no, I don't know that. I 'm gonna assume that we're lower than most states, um, but I be because uh it's closer to like three percent, I believe, you know, and and they have been increasing some of the funding for some of the things, but taking it away at the same time. So I I think we're still somewhere in the range of three to four percent, but um, that's so low. That's so low. I mean, we're we're like a co-equal branch and we get like three percent of the budget.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 30:11

Interesting. What

Accountability: What & How

Amanda Benbow Lunn 30:13

should voters hold you accountable for if you were elected and how should they hold you accountable?

Christine Walczyk 30:19

Okay, great question. Um, well, first of all, I think that the public has a right to judges that are gonna be true to their oaths and the ethical standards we set for ourselves. Um, you know, people always talk about how the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't have any ethical standards. Well, we have a lot of ethical standards here. We have a lot of ethical rules and opinions that we can follow, and and we need to follow those rules. And the public deserves judges that have a work ethic. You know, they're gonna come to work, they're gonna resolve cases in a timely fashion, move cases along. They deserve judges that are gonna put um people over political agendas and politics. I think we deserve independent judges who are gonna live in the middle and protect our democratic traditions and protect our individual liberties, like voting and due process and these things that that that we as a country, this is our values and our foundations. Um and I also think that judges need to connect with their communities and get down off the bench. I think people deserve that. Um, one, it's good for judges because it increases trust in the system. If they can see me as a human being, they can see me working beside them or volunteering or doing community service or just speaking at events. Um, because I can sit up there all day and make good decisions, but I also need to get down and go into my community and show people what my values are, show them that I care about my neighbors. And if I do that, I think ultimately they're gonna have more trust in us. Um and I think how they hold me accountable, the first way is you can not vote for me the next time if I don't do what I should do, although I admit it's a long term, it's an eight-year term. Um right now I have a four-year term. And when people are not happy with me, they can pretty quickly, you know, remove me from office if they're not happy with me or run against me. Um, but also, you know, if we're not following the ethical rules for ourselves, that people can make complaints um against judges and and we can be investigated and you know, there can be disciplinary action. Um, so those are the two primary ways to hold a judge accountable.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 32:11

I mean who do you make the complaints to?

Christine Walczyk 32:13

Uh the Judicial Standards Commission is they have a, you know, you can go online and fill out a form.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 32:18

Okay.

Christine Walczyk 32:18

I'm not recommending that you do that for me, but I'm just I'm just saying that's how you would do it.

What Works And What Needs Fixing

Amanda Benbow Lunn 32:24

What do you feel needs improving and what's working well in our judicial system?

Christine Walczyk 32:29

Oh, well, improving is easy. There's so much more that I think we need to improve. Um I I feel like, especially in the criminal arena, we've got to start getting serious, what I call serious about safety. You know, you can lock people up all day. Our jails are full right now. We have people sleeping on the floors. Um, this is in part due to the Irania's law where they changed um the judge's discretion on bonds. And so there's just a lot more people being held pending their trials. And um, you know, I lost my train of thought. But uh basically um we got to get serious about safety. We, you know, you can lock people up, but you really need to make sure we're addressing the root causes of violence and crime. Some of those things are, for example, we have many, many people with untreated mental health illness, and we just don't have any resources to provide people who have mental health illnesses, substance abuse. Um, we're lucky that we have a recovery court here in Wake County. That's one of the things I would say works really well. There are other counties have veterans courts that deal with veterans with mental health issues. I think those courts are working really well. In New Hanover, they have safe babies courts. Um, so these kinds of uh they're not boutique courts, but specialized courts are are very helpful and I think they're working well. But if we don't address the root causes, you know, gang violence, mental health illness, substance abuse, then we're not making any progress. We have to have a more holistic approach to it. So I don't think we're doing that well. We're not dealing with the whole person and we're not addressing it at an early enough time. You know, we're just kind of reacting and people are getting charged and we're trying to work through that. And again, you know, part of this is funding, but if we had more funding and more judges and more courtrooms, justice would be faster. You know, people would get their day in court earlier. And I think there's a lot of alternative dispute resolution out there, but not a lot in the more rural communities. I mean, Wake County is pretty lucky. We have some resources here, and sometimes the county will supplement the resources. The legal support center is a perfect example of that. But, you know, there's other places where there's just not a lot of resources, you know, and we're not able to do what we need to do. For example, just like mediation programs. When I was in family court, we set up a volunteer mediation program, you know. So we had maybe two days a week, we had lawyers volunteering to mediate family law cases for people. So they could just sit with this mediator and try to resolve it before they came in front of the judge, or if they were not going to get reached that day. And and they resolved a tremendous amount of the cases for us. And the parties felt good because they got to agree on it and they didn't have to pay anything for it. And it was helpful for us because it took the case off our calendar and resolved it.

Last Thoughts

Amanda Benbow Lunn 35:04

As we wrap up, is there anything we haven't discussed that you would like voters to know or anything from our conversation that you'd like to expand upon for clarity?

Christine Walczyk 35:12

I mean, I think I've said a lot about why I'm running and what's important. The only thing I don't think I talked about too much is the diversity on the courts. I think people need to feel represented in North Carolina. They need to feel like they are represented on the courts. And I don't think our court is really balanced right now. I've been telling people, like I said, on the Court of Appeals, for example, there's only three seats up. They're all held by Democrats. And if I win, I'm gonna be the only Democratic woman left on the 15-person court. And I just don't think that's balanced. I don't think it's a court the public's gonna trust. And I think, you know, Democrats and people of color and women bring a unique perspective and we deserve a seat at that table. And so we need to get better about, you know, making sure that on our appellate levels, people are more represented there.

How to Learn More

Amanda Benbow Lunn 35:55

Okay. And for voters who want to learn more about you, your platform, your campaign endorsements and priorities, where can they go to find that information?

Christine Walczyk 36:03

Well, that is a great question because I always forget to say that. Well, I'll just say I what one of the other things I'm really proud of is I am endorsed by all different cross-sections of people. So I'm endorsed by, you know, unions and teachers and environmentalists and police. And if you go to judgechristine.org, we have a website. There's an endorsement page there. You can read about it. You can also read about my experience and my background and you know what I believe in. And I would love to have you join my team. And we need volunteers, but most importantly, I want people to vote. I really think a lot of people skip the judicial races because they don't know who we are. And I don't think we can afford to do that anymore. I think people have got to read about their judges and decide who they trust and vote for them.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 36:45

Excellent. Well, thank you so much, Christine, for joining us today. I really appreciate you taking the time, and I wish you the best of luck with your campaign.

Christine Walczyk 36:53

Well, thank you so much. I appreciate you doing this.

Amanda Benbow Lunn 36:55

Democracy

Closing Reflections & Voting Info

Amanda Benbow Lunn 36:56

is built on participation. Politics can sometimes feel distant or abstract, but the decisions made by our elected officials at the county, state, and federal levels have a profound effect on the communities we call home and the way we live our lives, from the roads we drive on and the schools our children attend to public safety, parks and recreation, housing, health care, taxes, the economy, and the many other services and amenities that make up our communities. Government plays a role in shaping both our everyday experience and our future. That makes taking the time to understand the choices on your ballot and the people asking for your vote an important part of being an engaged member of your community. Early voting for the 2026 midterm election begins October 15th and runs through October 31st. In Southern Wake County, there will be early voting locations at the Hut Center in Holly Springs, the Hilltop Baymore Town Park Clubhouse in Fiquem Arena, Beach Bluff County Park, and Southern Wake Tech Campus close by. Election day is November 3rd. A general reminder that you will need a valid photo ID to vote, the regular voter registration deadline is October 9th, although you may still register when you vote during the early voting period. Please note that you cannot register to vote on Election Day itself, and that that day you will absolutely have to vote at your designated precinct location to have access to your full ballot. And because there are so many races and ballot measures this year, your ballot will likely be double-sided. It can be helpful to start on the back so that you don't accidentally overlook anything. You'll vote for the races that apply to your jurisdiction along with statewide amendments, and for Southern Wake County voters, local Wake County bond referenda. Voting is one of the ways we take part in the communities we share. You don't have to agree with your neighbors or even with the candidates you've heard here to recognize that our communities are shaped by the people who show up, ask questions, learn about the choices before them, and cast their ballots. So please take the time to get informed, make your voice heard, and encourage the people around you to do the same. Your vote matters. Your voice matters. And you absolutely matter, my friend. And with that, this episode of the NC Deep Dive has come to an end. Please feel free to check out this episode show notes at ncdeepdive.com for further information and relevant links for this candidate along with general election information. As always, if you have any topics or thoughts you'd like to share, you can find us on social media or email us at ncdeepdive at gmail.com. If you found value in this episode, I'd love for you to subscribe, rate, and share it so that others may more easily be informed. Please make sure to stay tuned for all the relevant candidate amendment and referenda episodes for the 2026 midterm election by visiting ncdeepdive.com, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Audible, or wherever you currently listen to your podcast. Until next time, my friends, Namaste. The Love and Light in Me sees and honors the Love and Light in You.