Brendan K Maginnis' Bipartisan Voter Guide

In the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, I endorse Michael Whatley, but only because his opponents—like Don Brown and Michele Morrow—are too radical, pushing extreme positions that alienate moderates and focus excessively on fringe issues rather than broad conservative governance. Whatley's platform, while aligned with Trump's agenda on key priorities like border security and economic nationalism, remains weak outside of that endorsement, potentially leaving voters—especially those who aren't diehard Trump fans—questioning what exactly they're voting for amid the constant shifts in Trump's policy stances. As former RNC Chair with Trump's backing, Whatley offers organizational experience and party unity, making him a more stable choice in a crowded field. However, for voters seeking representation above partisan politics, Democrat Roy Cooper should still be the clear pick in November to prioritize North Carolina's needs over national drama. For those pulling a Republican ballot in the primary, Whatley appears to be the sanest option available.

I am not endorsing Justin Dues in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, where Roy Cooper remains the clear frontrunner. However, Dues deserves recognition for his genuine effort to fully participate in this crowded field—filled with perennial candidates—by responding to multiple candidate questionnaires (including WBTV and others), sharing his platform as a tech consultant and Marine Corps veteran, and engaging voters despite knowing he will almost certainly lose. In a primary where most challengers receive little attention, his willingness to show up and make his case stands out as a form of public service. Voters should at least take a moment to find out more about him, read his responses, and remember his name as a small reward for those efforts—contributions like this help keep the democratic process alive even in lopsided races.

I do not endorse Michele Morrow in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, despite some grassroots pushes framing her as a bold alternative to frontrunner Michael Whatley. As a late entrant with a hard-right platform, Morrow's history—including controversial past social media posts calling for executing public figures like Barack Obama and promoting QAnon conspiracies—raises serious alarms about her fitness for office. Even the mere possibility of her advancing past the primaries should concern voters, as her extreme views and divisive rhetoric prioritize outrage over substantive policy and could undermine broader conservative goals. While she emphasizes conservative education reform and parental rights from her 2024 run for Superintendent of Public Instruction, these are overshadowed by her inflammatory statements that make her an unreliable choice for representing North Carolina in the Senate. Republican voters should consider more stable options to ensure the party fields a candidate capable of effective governance.

I do not endorse Don Brown in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, as his positions come across as too radical for mainstream voters, including his defense of January 6 defendants, emphasis on extreme loyalty to Trump nominees, and hard-line stances that prioritize cultural battles over broader policy solutions. As a retired U.S. Navy JAG officer and attorney, Brown has experience, but his platform appeals primarily to the far-right fringe rather than offering a balanced conservative vision for North Carolina. Voters should only consider him if they fully align with his stated agenda—such as criticizing perceived disloyalty within the GOP and pushing aggressive America First rhetoric—and not view him as a viable alternative to frontrunner Michael Whatley. In a crowded field where Whatley holds a commanding lead with Trump's endorsement, Brown's approach risks further polarizing the party without providing practical governance. Republican voters deserve options that focus on unity and electability over divisiveness.

Addul Ali brings a strong history of political involvement, including service as Chairman of the Cabarrus County GOP and the 12th District GOP, along with founding the NCGOP Black Conservative Voices Coalition and his background as an Army veteran and community organizer. These experiences make him one of the more seasoned and capable candidates Republicans could field in this district. His emphasis on public safety, lowering the cost of living, and championing education and early childhood literacy aligns with practical priorities for the Charlotte area. While I ultimately think he would not be the best fit to represent the diverse needs of North Carolina's 12th District in the general election—due to his support for certain policies by the current administration that hurt the district and show a desire to put party over people—he stands out as the best candidate to come through for Republicans in the primary.

For these reasons, I endorse Addul Ali in the Republican primary.

While Rep. Alma Adams has done one thing consistently well—showing up in her district—she has stumbled in many areas that define an effective representative, including legislative productivity and vocal advocacy on broader issues. She embodies many of the concerns Democrats raise in their push for new leadership: being older, perceived as ineffective, and not vocal enough on critical matters affecting her constituents and the nation. Over her roughly 11 years in Congress, Adams has seen only 4 policy-driven bills enacted into law, with a heavy focus on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)—a worthy priority, but one that comes at the expense of addressing the full range of needs across her diverse district and the state of North Carolina. With the limited number of Black elected officials in Congress, it's understandable for her to champion causes for the Black community; however, as one of only 4 (and possibly 3 after this election) elected House Democrats from North Carolina, we need a representative who advocates more broadly for all residents of the 12th District and the entire state. As the incumbent in one of the safest Democratic seats in the entire U.S., the district—and the country—deserve someone who is more vocal and proactive in challenging the current administration's policies on a national stage. Her delayed response to the Iryna Zarutska murder—coming after 17 days and even after statements from the Governor and Attorney General- highlights either an unwillingness to confront Republican narratives or an inability to effectively defend against them, which is not what this district needs at this pivotal time.

For these reasons, I am not endorsing Alma Adams in the Democratic primary.

John C. Codiga is a finance professional and recent Charlotte resident whose platform highlights conservative principles such as sound money, free markets, and America First policies. However, several of his positions stand out as extreme, including calls to abolish the Federal Reserve and return to a gold/silver standard, eliminate Social Security and other entitlement programs (which he has described as Ponzi schemes), impose a federal abortion ban, criminalize certain pornography production, and impose strict limits on immigration and work visas. His aggressive advocacy for mandatory voter ID, nationwide paper ballots, and related election reforms—while presented as election security measures—could be viewed as overly restrictive and burdensome in a diverse, urban district like NC-12. These stances appear to prioritize ideological purity over practical, inclusive solutions that address the everyday needs of working families and communities in Charlotte. For these reasons, I am not endorsing John C. Codiga in the Republican primary.

Alexander Nicholi is a young software developer and informatician running in the NC-13 Democratic primary, bringing fresh ideas on issues like fiscal responsibility (opposing deficit spending) and modern challenges in technology and the economy. His progressive-leaning platform and Gen Z perspective add energy to the race. While I am not endorsing him this time, his candidacy shows promise and could serve as a valuable stepping stone for future runs as he builds experience and name recognition. In a district where Brad Knott is favored to win the general, consider if his forward-thinking vision resonates personally for amplifying certain issues post-primary.

Incumbent Brad Knott, a first-term Republican and former federal prosecutor, has shown little actual benefit to NC-13 over the two years he's served, with limited legislative achievements or direct impacts on the Triangle-area district's priorities like affordability and economic growth. While he is highly likely to win the primary and the general in this red-leaning seat, Republican voters should consider whether giving him an easy path through the primary will encourage any real accountability or motivate him to deliver more substantive results in another two years. They should also consider if a protest vote in either the primary or the general is a better use of their vote to send a clearer message about demanding more from their representative. Instead of a rubber-stamp vote, weigh if Knott truly represents the best option for the district when it comes to the general election—his record so far suggests a need for more proactive representation. For these reasons, I do not endorse Brad Knott in the Republican primary. Voters should research thoroughly and demand more from their candidates.

Frank Pierce, a 40-year-old Raleigh landscaping business owner, is a good candidate running a rematch against incumbent Brad Knott after his 2024 general election loss (41% to Knott's 59%). He focuses on moderate Democratic priorities like abortion rights, public education, immigration reform, and grassroots engagement (including extensive door-knocking in past cycles). However, questions remain about whether he's done enough in the past two years—such as building stronger organization, fundraising, or broadening appeal—to change the outcome against a now-incumbent with establishment support in this red-leaning district. While his persistence is commendable, I am not endorsing him in this primary. Voters should weigh if his approach has evolved sufficiently to make a stronger case this time around.

Sid Sharma, a 29-year-old Republican challenger, brings youth and fresh energy to the NC-13 primary, but offers little else in terms of detailed policy proposals, experience, or a compelling vision to effectively represent the district's needs. His platform, while conservative-leaning, lacks the depth to stand out in a race against an established incumbent like Knott. With Knott poised to win the primary handily, Republican voters might see Sharma as a protest vote option, and they should consider if a protest vote in either the primary or the general is a better use of their vote to push for greater accountability overall. For these reasons, I do not endorse Sid Sharma in the Republican primary. Instead, consider how your vote can push for stronger, more impactful candidates overall.

Brent Caldwell is a solid, viable choice in the NC-14 Democratic primary. As a real estate attorney, former labor organizer, and progressive advocate, he emphasizes lowering the cost of living through more housing, a public healthcare option, government childcare support, protecting democracy (ending gerrymandering, reducing money in politics), and ensuring working people benefit from economic growth and AI. His organized campaign and focus on structural reforms show commitment to long-term change. With Tim Moore almost certain to prevail in the general election in this solidly Republican-leaning district, consider voting for the candidate whose priorities—especially affordability and democratic protections—resonate most with you and deserve broader visibility post-primary. Brent offers a thoughtful, pragmatic path forward.

There is no question that Tim Moore previously brought tangible benefits to his former district—particularly Cleveland County—during his tenure as North Carolina House Speaker, which helps explain his strong performance in this new, redrawn district. However, without that same institutional power to deliver direct resources and projects to NC-14, Republican voters should seriously question whether his current focus on culture-war issues over kitchen-table priorities like affordability, healthcare access, and childcare costs truly serves the district's needs. This concern is compounded by Moore's well-documented campaign finance controversies and apparent conflicts of interest related to self-enrichment, which raise doubts about whose interests he prioritizes. If a Republican voter is seeking a "Trump-lite" candidate who aligns closely with national conservative rhetoric, Moore fits that profile. But for those who genuinely prioritize substantive solutions to everyday economic challenges facing working families in Charlotte suburbs and rural counties alike, his record offers little in the way of meaningful proposals—he has become the poster boy for collecting a check rather than delivering results. For these reasons, I do not endorse Tim Moore in the Republican primary. Voters should carefully weigh these factors and consider whether his approach matches the practical needs of the district.

Kevin Clark brings a commendable background as a U.S. Army veteran, community activist, and former Richmond County Democratic Party Chairman, with a platform centered on rebuilding opportunities through investments in education, working families, and communities—worthy priorities for NC-8's rural and working-class areas. Grassroots mobilization and directly reaching voters are especially important in this district to build support and counter the incumbent's advantages, and Clark's experience in prior local races demonstrates solid familiarity with that kind of engagement. Note that Jesse Oppenheim has withdrawn from the race (due to unexpected medical news), though he remains on the ballot; this leaves Clark and Colby Watson as the active contenders. However, Watson appears to have a clear advantage in this aspect through highly visible efforts like his 25-mile daily walks across the district, which generate more personal connections and name recognition. While Clark is a solid candidate, I do not endorse him, favoring the contender who shows stronger momentum in reaching voters directly. Either Democratic nominee faces a steep uphill battle in this Republican-leaning district, so the winner must reward voters' faith with unwavering effort and tangible progress to build long-term support.

Brings youthful energy and progressive ideas to the race, offering a fresh perspective that could energize younger voters and highlight forward-thinking solutions for central North Carolina.

Demonstrates commitment through his willingness to run and engage on local issues, contributing to a stronger conversation about the district's needs even in a challenging environment.

I do not endorse Nigel Bristow in the Democratic primary for U.S. House, as his community-focused platform—centered on economic development, accessibility, and rural district needs—doesn't quite match the standout qualities of his opponent. Bristow offers reliability and familiarity from his 2024 challenge to the incumbent, bringing steady advocacy for everyday issues that resonate in central North Carolina's rural and suburban mix. However, in a field without Richard Ojeda's veteran background, outspoken style, and broader appeal, Bristow would be the clear choice as a dependable alternative. Voters should consider his consistency when weighing the options, but the presence of a more dynamic contender shifts the balance away from endorsement here.

I do not endorse Tricia Cotham in the Republican primary, as even Republican voters must question her dramatic party switch from Democrat to Republican in 2023, wondering if another switch back is just a few perceived offenses away given her history. She's done little with her seat to benefit the district, showing a lack of conviction on key issues like education, healthcare, and infrastructure that directly affect south Charlotte, Matthews, and Mint Hill residents—she's the epitome of a seat warmer prioritizing survival over substantive action. If this were November, Republican voters might feel stuck knowing exactly who they're getting, but with a solid alternative in Kelly VanHorn offering moderate, principled conservatism, moderate Republicans and unaffiliated voters participating in the GOP primary should seriously wonder if a vote for Cotham is a vote lost in a district that deserves better representation.

While it would be easy to endorse Rodney Sadler based on his strong resume—including his background as a pastor, professor, author, community leader, and consistent Democratic activist—along with significant party support and establishment backing, the real question is whether that very support positions him as just another "same old, same old" option for Democrats hungry for fresh ideas and new energy in the party. Sadler's campaign emphasizes progressive values, equity, justice, education, and community investment, which align well with the district's needs, but his deep ties to traditional party structures raise concerns about whether he represents genuine renewal or simply the safest, most predictable choice to defeat incumbent Carla Cunningham. The heavy institutional backing he has received often seems driven more by the perception that he's the strongest bet to unseat Cunningham amid her controversies, rather than broad enthusiasm for his vision as a transformative leader. In a solidly blue district like NC-106, voters deserve a candidate who inspires beyond being the anti-Cunningham option—one who brings authentic innovation and excitement to Democratic representation. For these reasons, I do not endorse Rodney Sadler in the Democratic primary. Voters should carefully assess whether the party establishment's preference truly serves the call for new energy or merely perpetuates the status quo.

Rep. Carla Cunningham has done a good job in the past, delivering for her north Charlotte constituents over multiple terms in this solidly blue district. However, her recent perceived racist remarks—particularly her floor speech on HB 318 where she stated "all cultures are not equal" and emphasized immigrant assimilation—have drawn significant backlash from community members, colleagues, and immigrants who labeled the comments inflammatory, xenophobic, and divisive. Combined with her repeated breaks from Democratic priorities (voting with Republicans more than any other Democrat in 2025, including overriding vetoes on immigration enforcement and other issues), these actions raise serious questions about whether she can effectively represent the district moving forward. While it is commendable in a hyper-partisan environment for elected officials to break from their party on tough issues, such independence is better suited to toss-up districts rather than a heavily Democratic one where constituents expect alignment with party lines on core matters. If Cunningham wishes to remain an elected official, it might be better for her to seek a district that more closely matches her evolving beliefs rather than attempting to impose them on a constituency that has consistently supported progressive Democratic values. For these reasons, I do not endorse Carla Cunningham in the Democratic primary.

Nasif Majeed has an admirable career of service, particularly in public office as a former Charlotte City Council member and current state representative, where he has advocated for equity, education, and criminal justice reform. However, questions remain about whether he has passed his most effective time to serve as a strong voice for this district and Democrats statewide. His decisions to vote to override Gov. Stein's vetoes on certain bills appear out of step with the priorities of this solidly blue district, and such positions might be more suited to a toss-up district where compromise carries greater weight. Additionally, his campaign information has not been meaningfully updated since 2019, and his lack of responses to key questionnaires (e.g., WBTV and Charlotte Observer) leaves voters without clear insight into where he stands today. This leads many to believe one of two things: either he is so self-assured of victory that he feels no need to engage in the normal democratic process, or he has lost the energy and competency required to maintain basic campaign outreach. For these reasons, I do not endorse Nasif Majeed for re-election in this primary. Voters deserve a representative who actively communicates and aligns with the district's progressive values.

I do not endorse Tucker Neal in the Democratic primary, as his youth and progressive focus, while promising, don't quite edge out stronger alternatives in this competitive field. As a UNC Charlotte student and first-time candidate, Neal brings fresh energy and experience in policy advocacy, highlighting important issues like equity and community reform that invigorate the race. His participation adds valuable diversity to the conversation and demonstrates potential for future runs, where he could build on this foundation. Voters should appreciate what he's contributed to broadening the debate in District 99. Overall, while Neal shows promise, the endorsement goes to a contender with more established depth for immediate impact.

Shows thoughtful engagement on county issues through questionnaire responses, emphasizing practical governance and community safety; his input contributes to a well-rounded field.

Brings energy and a commitment to affordability and public services; her participation highlights important resident concerns that deserve attention.

Offers a fresh viewpoint centered on accessibility and long-term county planning; her involvement enriches the conversation on future-focused solutions.

Demonstrates passion for social services and equity, with a background that resonates on issues affecting vulnerable populations; she adds meaningful diversity of experience to the primary.

Leigh Altman has done a commendable job since first elected in 2020, often serving as a calming, steady presence on the board during divisive discussions and working to advance county priorities like fiscal responsibility and community services. However, there are legitimate concerns about several of her positions that could negatively impact some of the most vulnerable Charlotteans, including her support for the transit tax referendum and the current 77 toll lane extension in south Charlotte, both of which critics argue disproportionately burden lower-income residents through higher costs and limited accessibility. Additionally, her one-sided focus on issues far outside her elected role—particularly her frequent social media commentary on Israel's war in Gaza—raises questions about whether her priorities extend beyond her responsibilities as a county commissioner and whether she is fully committed to representing all constituents equally. While her overall service has been solid, these concerns tip the balance against re-endorsement in this primary. Voters should weigh her record carefully when ranking their top three choices.

I commend Yvette Townsend-Ingram for her strong community involvement prior to being elected, which she has commendably carried through even after joining the board, contributing to initiatives on food insecurity, housing, and racial equity. She has also brought much-needed empathy to a commission that can sometimes seem overly bureaucratic in its decision-making, advocating for compassionate approaches to county services. However, her recent legal issues—stemming from a 2024 DWI arrest, a guilty plea, and a 2025 arrest warrant for failing to complete required community service—demonstrate a lack of judgment, not just for herself but also for the Charlotte Democratic community under scrutiny for perceived lax treatment of the justice system. While people are not perfect, elected officials must serve as role models for their constituents, and even if her claims that the revelation of these details was politically motivated are true, it doesn't exempt her from taking full accountability for her actions or lack thereof. Sometimes, it's about admitting mistakes and assuring an empathetic constituency that you'll do better moving forward. While I do not endorse Yvette for re-election, I can see her finding her way back into office with a proper show of contrition.

A dedicated community advocate with strong ties to local equity and economic opportunity initiatives; her focus on inclusive development and resident engagement adds valuable grassroots perspective, even if not endorsed here.

I do not endorse Jessica Finkel in the Democratic primary. She brings a background in climate and racial justice organizing, along with ties to the local NAACP, which gives her insight into equity and environmental issues facing north Mecklenburg. Her focus on housing affordability and transit upgrades reflects genuine concern for residents dealing with growth pressures. While her advocacy work is solid, the role of commissioner calls for broader administrative and collaborative skills that her experience has not yet demonstrated at scale. She is a respectable candidate, but she does not stand out as the strongest option in this open-seat race.

I do not endorse Morris “Mac” McAdoo in the Democratic primary. As a lawyer and advocate for people with disabilities, he offers a thoughtful perspective on equity and community services, and his legal background could be useful in navigating county policy. He has participated in the race and shown willingness to engage on district concerns. That said, his campaign has been relatively low-visibility, with limited responses to some voter questionnaires and no standout momentum compared to others. He is a capable contender, but not the top choice for voters looking for immediate, high-impact leadership in District 1.

Vilma D. Leake's tenure has been admirable, marked by decades of dedicated service to west Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, and her fierce, unapologetic style has been a benefit at times—advocating passionately for underserved communities and holding the line on equity issues. At other times, that same intensity has hindered progress by creating unnecessary friction in board deliberations. There is no expiration date on effectiveness, but it is not unreasonable for the question to arise when someone is in their 90s and has served continuously for nearly 30 years. At this stage, voters must ask: Is she running because she remains fully effective in the role, or because there is simply nothing better for her to do? Does a person need to remain in office to stay impactful, or is there greater value in stepping back to mentor the next generation using the wisdom and connections she has built? With a viable opponent in Monifa Drayton offering fresh energy and strong qualifications, voters have a real choice to give Leake the gentle push she seems unwilling to make herself. For these reasons, I do not endorse Vilma D. Leake for re-election in this primary.

I do not endorse Phil Carey in this primary, but he is a strong alternative for voters who believe new faces are better suited to solve long-standing problems in the district. Carey brings a thoughtful, outsider perspective as a property manager, with clear priorities on housing affordability, transparent budgeting, and collaborative community policing that could inject fresh energy into addressing persistent challenges like growth pressures and equity. In other districts or the At-Large race, Carey would earn the endorsement for his competence and pragmatic approach. However, George Dunlap is still doing enough—through steady leadership on fiscal responsibility, public safety, and education funding—to retain the seat in this cycle. Carey may be two years early in his timing, but this run could be necessary to build name recognition and credibility if Dunlap decides to step away after the next two years. A vote for Carey now might help encourage him to show up even stronger then. For voters wanting renewal without sacrificing proven results, he remains a very capable option worth serious consideration.

Garry McFadden brought perceived stability to the sheriff's office when he first took over, and he has always maintained a visible, active presence in the community that resonates with many residents. He would still earn an avid endorsement in a less talented field. However, too many questions now surround what was happening under that veil of stability—state investigations into misconduct allegations, controversies over ICE detainer policies, and criticisms of departmental management have eroded confidence in his leadership. These issues have risen internally, with multiple high-profile resignations from executive staff (including former chief deputies Kevin Canty and Christopher Allen, who publicly accused him of creating a hostile work environment, bullying, and retaliation), a wave of terminations/retirements, and former employees filing lawsuits or petitions alleging retaliation, misuse of resources, and threats. This raises serious doubts about whether he retains the full faith and support within his own office, as the departures and public criticisms from trusted insiders suggest fractured morale and internal dissent. If re-elected, I hope he can put all these controversies firmly in the past and restore the stable, effective leadership the public once perceived. In this competitive race with strong challengers, however, he does not receive my endorsement. Voters deserve a sheriff who can unify the department and lead without lingering doubt.

I do not endorse Antwain Nance in the Democratic primary, but he is a positive addition to this strong field. With his background as a former detention officer in the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office, Nance brings direct experience in jail operations and a clear understanding of frontline challenges, which he channels into a platform emphasizing accountability, reform, and community trust. His willingness to step up and offer a fresh perspective shows commitment to improving the department from within. While he lacks the extensive leadership tenure of others, Nance's insider knowledge of detention work and focus on practical solutions make him a credible voice in the conversation. Voters looking for someone grounded in daily operations will find value in his candidacy.

I do not endorse Ricky Robbins in the Democratic primary, though he is a quality candidate, and voters would not be wrong for supporting him. With over 30 years at CMPD—including SWAT, homicide, and traffic safety experience—Robbins brings strong law enforcement credentials, a focus on modern policing, community safety, and hiring reform. He would be a capable alternative for voters disenchanted with McFadden who prefer experience from outside the sheriff's office, which Collins cannot provide. However, Robbins loses the endorsement because Collins' deeper, insider knowledge of the sheriff's office operations—built over decades—better addresses the immediate need for trust, stability, and seamless day-one leadership amid current departmental challenges, whereas Robbins would face at least some learning curve in the unique workings of the sheriff's office. For voters prioritizing internal familiarity and minimal disruption, Collins edges him out, but Robbins remains a solid, experienced option in this strong field.

I do not endorse Matt Smith in the Republican primary, as his experience as a Superior Court Judge, while solid, doesn't match Byrne's specialized appellate background or the broad law enforcement support that signals deeper trust in impartial decision-making. Smith's conservative philosophy of applying the law as written is commendable, but it lacks the explicit focus on due process protections that are increasingly vital amid ongoing debates about violations in the justice system. In a head-to-head with Byrne's endorsements and record, Smith comes across as a capable but less distinguished alternative. Voters should consider whether his trial-level expertise outweighs Byrne's proven strengths in administrative and appellate matters. Ultimately, the primary offers a clearer path to a more endorsed and process-oriented judge.

Christine Walczyk, a veteran Wake County District Court Judge with 19 years on the bench, offers substantial trial experience in family and civil courts, emphasizing moral courage to protect constitutional rights like privacy, education access, and free speech, while aiming to restore public trust in the judiciary as a coequal branch. She highlights the importance of diversity, noting she's the only woman in the Democratic field for Court of Appeals seats, which brings valuable perspectives to a court that should reflect North Carolina's population. However, while diversity is undeniably important for a fair and representative judiciary, it shouldn't be a decisive trait in making electoral decisions with broader implications for experience, approach, and statewide impact. In this competitive primary, her strengths are notable, but they don't outweigh the need for a more dynamic, public-engaged candidate. For these reasons, I do not endorse Christine Walczyk in the Democratic primary—voters should evaluate both candidates' full records to choose the best fit for advancing justice in North Carolina.

Habekah Cannon is a qualified and dedicated opponent in this primary, bringing nearly a decade of legal experience as managing attorney of her own firm, prior work with the ACLU (co-authoring reports on court fines/fees), the Mecklenburg Public Defender’s Office, and community advocacy through roles like Guardian ad Litem and the National Conference of Black Lawyers. Her platform emphasizes making courts places where people are seen, heard, and treated fairly, with a focus on access to justice, accountability, and standing up for those who need the system to work for them. While she offers a fresh perspective and strong community ties, I believe Judge Oseguera's deeper courtroom and judicial experience edges her out for re-election in this seat. Cannon remains a capable candidate who could serve well in future opportunities, and voters should appreciate the robust debate this race has brought to judicial elections.

George Guise brings impressive depth with over 30 years as a prosecutor, civil litigator, criminal defense attorney, and in-house counsel, plus strong support from much of the local legal community and an endorsement from the Charlotte Observer highlighting his meticulous temperament. However, the race's high profile stems from intense exchanges, and while both sides have made compelling arguments, Guise's heavy reliance on endorsements from prominent lawyers raises legitimate concerns about conflicts of interest under the ethical framework of the North Carolina State Bar (which governs lawyer conduct and emphasizes avoiding the appearance of impropriety). If elected, he would likely need to recuse himself frequently in cases involving those endorsers, potentially leading to gaps in judicial decision-making and running counter to the spirit of protocols to prevent even perceived bias in the judiciary. In judicial elections where voters rely heavily on insider knowledge, this approach to endorsements tips the balance against him in a decision that should prioritize uncompromised impartiality. For these reasons, I do not endorse George Guise in the Democratic primary. Voters should weigh these factors carefully when choosing who will fill this important bench seat.