Judicial Values | Martin Moore, Candidate for NC Court of Appeals

No matter how attuned you believe you are to the upcoming election, there’s a strong chance you have no idea who’s running for the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Today’s episode should help solve that problem.

Martin Moore moved to Asheville in 2015 when he took his first job as an attorney, working as a public defender in Buncombe County. He has since opened a private practice in Asheville while serving on the Buncombe County Commission. Moore sees these as steppingstones in a life calling that brings him, now, to campaigning for a judicial seat on the state Court of Appeals.

Martin Moore tells us about his upbringing and what drew him to public service. He also tells us about why the appellate court is so critical to everyday life in North Carolina, how his time as a public defender and county commissioner have prepared him for this campaign and the values he hopes to bring to the body of 15 judges.

Help "The Overlook with Matt Peiken" podcast reach its very reachable goal: Just $1,000 in monthly contributions by Election Day. Membership at our Patreon campaign starts at just $5/month. 

Transcript

Matt Peiken: Did you grow up in a politically active or politically conscious family? Tell me about how you even saw yourself as having an entry point into this world. 

Martin Moore: I'll definitely say public service was in my blood. My father was a teacher all of his, all of my life. Learned a lot about what that looks like, the struggles that families face when dealing with a family member who's going through all the politics of education.

Mom was a working mom, still made every soccer game, and also an active union member, CWA. Which is particularly relevant right now. So I got to see what advocacy can look like in many forms, and I'm very grateful for that political background, a little bit of experience knowing what working class folks are going through.

Matt Peiken: Now, political science was your education. What was your entry point into studying law? 

Martin Moore: It's a great question. So a lot of my volunteering work undergrad was either political or getting involved in a lot of protests that were happening on campus and helping [00:02:00] people just spotlight local issues.

Chapel Hill has a very diverse community with a lot of problems and focusing on improving those areas. I got to work with the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence on a volunteer job. And that really just helped me figure out what I got to look forward to in the path of law and I was very fortunate, did my work study at the law school, hung around long enough to really figure out, I didn't know what type of attorney I wanted to be, but I knew that I wanted to have the skills to, to help change systems and better understand how we advocate.

Matt Peiken: Talk about that a little more. You were motivated to help change systems. What did you see in the systems that needed changing? 

Martin Moore: I'll say it's something that's remained the case throughout my time, just with more nuance and better understanding with the law background. But justice shouldn't change based on your zip code.

We have a lot of parts of North Carolina. Buncombe County is fortunately one of them that are very well resourced. We have a lot of great judges, a lot of good people who are motivated to reach the right, just outcomes. Chapel Hill is certainly very similar. But I found myself, especially when I was volunteering with the Innocence Project at UNC Law [00:03:00] that not every county had the same resources, not everyone had the same kind of background or values and spent the amount of time that many of us would say is the important due diligence to get the just outcome in any given case.

Sometimes that took the form of having resources to review SBI evidence, or to make sure the right DNA was reviewed by the quality experts. Other places it was simply just overburdened systems with not enough prosecutors, not enough defense attorneys. So it didn't even have to turn into an earth shattering systems change as much as advocating and saying, Hey, we need the right resources in every county so we can reach these outcomes.

Matt Peiken: You're talking about well resourced communities not having some of the same deficits of justice that you were seeing in rural counties. What were you seeing happening because of the lack of resources? Give me some examples of how you saw justice not being met by having Communities that just weren't as well resourced.

Martin Moore: I'll give you a classic example that resonates with my background as a public defender. You have a good number of cases. Buncombe County is one of those [00:04:00] places that we're fortunate. I don't think any public defender throughout North Carolina is getting rich, but we have many tools at our disposal and a great bar that's supportive of one another.

In some rural counties, you'll go out there and there might be five or six guys who do the lion's share of the work. Five or six men or women who are just willing to spend that time taking the pay cut to get just outcomes for indigent folks. And a lot of what that looks like in practice is people who are doing their absolute best, but navigating the fact that the court runs In a very efficient way.

Not every case is going to be continued the ideal number of times for either prosecutor or defense attorney, and that results in some very interesting decisions that have to be made about what resources you have, what experts are available, and truth be told, as you've seen, the economy is what it is. A lot of experts are not cheap.

A lot of the folks who we really need in certain communities are overtaxed themselves. So getting that wonderful expert from Durham or even reaching out of state becomes increasingly more difficult as you're sitting in rural counties and might not have the funds for an expert that someone who's an active practitioner in Durham County, Wake [00:05:00] County, Buncombe County would be able to access a little bit easier. 

Matt Peiken: You mentioned that you were involved in an innocence project. You interned that way. When you went to law school and When you served on the Innocence Project here in North Carolina, did you already know you wanted to work as a public defender? 

Martin Moore: Candidly, I did not. I wanted to get comprehensive experience.

I wanted to know what was out there. So my first internship was at a public defender's office. But that next summer, I spent time at the North Carolina Supreme Court, which gave me experience across any number of cases and really helped me appreciate how many of our cases are done pro se or with people filing their own kind of appeals or petitions and appreciating that standard.

That same summer, I also spent time at the North Carolina Attorney General's office under then Attorney General Roy Cooper. So I got to see a broad swath of what types of cases are out there. I was fortunate when you have an opportunity to serve in Asheville, you don't turn that down. But I think having that vast experience and trying different things, including the next year, the [00:06:00] civil legal assistance clinic, there's any number of ways you can have an impact. And I just happened to be fortunate enough to serve in Asheville. 

Matt Peiken: Tell me, in your time now, this is your first full time work that you, right? So since 2015, it's been nine years you've been in this position. What have you learned in this position that helped inspire your run now for the North Carolina Court of Appeals? 

Martin Moore: It's like drinking from a firehose is what I tell people. I was at the Public Defender's Office there for four years some of the best years of serving here, and it really taught me a lot because of the diversity of cases that you get. We live in a community that, by and large, wants to see positive changes. We want a safe community. We want an inclusive community, and we want to talk about what justice looks like in a sense that everybody can feel protected.

And also know that they're going to walk into that courtroom and be treated fairly regardless of their background. In Buncombe County, it's been fascinating to navigate, especially before I got into the role in County Commission what type of things we can do to stay ahead of the curve, right?

We don't want to be leading from behind, we want to be ahead of the [00:07:00] curve in terms of, What are our processes look like? Are we having effective communications? Are we using county money locally in a way that's going to be beneficial for our community, both balancing safety and then also balancing out what our community priorities are?

I think most of us would agree, even public defenders would agree, that violent crimes are a priority the top of the list of what we want to get resolved for many reasons. Don't need folks languishing in the jail but we also want to make good decisions that keep our community safe, and Seeing what that looks like in Buncombe has given me an opportunity to make more suggestions than I might in other counties. 

Matt Peiken: You said you serve on the County Commission. Let me back up a little bit then so you were a public defender. What was happening locally or not happening that inspired you to seek a seat on the county commission?

Martin Moore: If you don't mind me backtracking a little bit, I went from the public defender's office, then to private practice, and now I have my own law firm from which I am able to be a little bit more vocal about the things I believe in. I'll say in terms of local initiatives, I found at county commission level, we have a resource rich community.

We have a [00:08:00] group of people who are motivated, who are politically active, populous, so there's no shortage of good ideas in our community. Executing those in a way where we're including all of our partners, everything from What justice initiatives look like here to how we engage community paramedics, how we're engaging with folks who have mental health issues versus those who might be facing just traditional, more violent crime backgrounds has been a fascinating endeavor.

I think us talking and coordinating, I've just now gotten more into having conversations about how we improve those processes. How does the county talk to the DA's office? How does the DA's office communicate to the sheriff's office and making sure that we're all working cohesively. A lot of folks think these things happen organically, but you really have to make those concerted efforts to get everybody on the same page.

And when you've got four or five elected officials in the mix, it takes a lot more intentionality than simply showing up. 

Matt Peiken: Has your seat or your time on the commission, do you feel it's been fruitful, rewarding, or are you frustrated? Are there blocks that you've seen in these two years [00:09:00] and that have punctuated your time on the commission?

Martin Moore: I'm always left with a sense of optimism. I'll be candid about that. I think there's challenges throughout our country right now and how we're having discussions about what community safety should look like. I'll say locally, Beyond just the justice space, we've had a lot of important conversations about justice, But also early childhood education, how we're investing in our next generation And really, my focus has not just been responding to crime, but how do we focus on crime prevention?

Those are the initiatives that excite me most. I don't want to continue to have conversations about what we do after the system grabs people. I want to have more forward looking discussions about how we create a world where Kids are staying in school. Kids are safe in school. How we're keeping them involved in productive initiatives that will steer them away from that.

Hopefully you can put all my old colleagues out of a job as public defenders and some prosecutors as well and make sure that we live in a community that's focused on prevention as opposed to being reactionary. 

Matt Peiken: I'm curious, now we have an open seat for Buncombe County Commission chair. Brownie Newman isn't running again. Did you [00:10:00] consider when you were weighing your options? Electorally, should I seek out this seat on a commission I'm already a member of, I'm already invested in? Why did you choose the route, not that this was your binary necessarily, but I can't imagine you wouldn't At least considered running.

Why did you not choose to run for the county commission chair position? 

Martin Moore: I appreciate that question and I was flattered by the number of calls that I got to consider that. I think it's helpful to have a law background because you're willing to talk about things other folks might not. I think we're all called to serve in different ways.

Certainly considered where my skills are best used. But I saw a moment in time. serving on commission where even at the local level, I'm looking at statewide and federal case law. We're seeing more and more roadblocks in that venue. The judiciary telling us what we can and can't do, whether it's on affordable housing initiatives, whether it's on how we can use our money to promote effective criminal justice processes or Even reproductive rights and discussions [00:11:00] around issues that used to not be judicial issues are now being front and center, and it's all coming back to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

At that moment in time, going into December of 2023, we had so much in front of us, and I figured that my best opportunity to serve was going to be in a context where I could use my legal background, I could use my appellate experience, and really share with people a better way of how we can campaign and talk about our judiciary to make people's lives better, not just at a state level, but helping people make that connection from what's happening in Raleigh to why our community is facing certain questions.

Matt Peiken: You just alluded to something, what's happening in Raleigh, you pointed to things that are happening at the judiciary to set a public policy in a way. There are people who would argue that's not the role of the judiciary, that's the role of the legislature. And I'm wondering, at the North Carolina Court of Appeals, it seems, from what I've read, that you only rule on matters of law, not on matters of fact that come to the Court of Appeals. I'm wondering, does that kind of limit what you [00:12:00] can do as one of 15 judges on the Court of Appeals to affect the kind of change you're looking at when A, the Court of Appeals only looks at matters of law, whether cases that have come up to the Court of Appeals have been ruled effectively on that matter, not looking at matters of fact that came across during lower court hearings, and that anything that you rule on will end up just going up to the state Supreme Court, that might overrule what the Court of Appeals does. I'm just wondering about how you can be effective as one of 15 members on this middle ground of a court. 

Martin Moore: I think that's a great question and it's been a big part of what I've been excited to share with people about how the role of our courts has changed at a state and federal level.

If you had asked me 15 years ago, particularly as I was contemplating law school and what impact I wanted to have, I would have agreed a lot more stay in the policy making world, stay in the legislative world. What we've seen though is [00:13:00] tremendous amounts of extremism and what we're seeing on those courts is extremist decisions.

I'll give you one example. The Court of Appeals does the lion's share of a lot of appellate work. Most cases end at the Court of Appeals. So you'll hear Supreme Court's high profile and it's extremely important because they can play a major role there. But the lion's share of most appellate issues are decided at the Court of Appeals.

One of those issues in the past two years was a decision that was rendered by the Court of Appeals that outright said life begins at conception. And when you have those kind of things making their way into our Court of Appeals decisions and they're not being overridden or they're not being withdrawn, people start to see and feel the impact of that.

People are concerned about North Carolina and what that means in terms of our values, because you're correct, it's a court that interprets the Constitution, but there's a big difference in how I might interpret the Constitution, even in a three judge panel on a 15 person court, there's a big difference between having representation that has a different set of values and people who are willing to honor the Constitution one way versus those who might be looking to rubber stamp their friend's [00:14:00] agenda in the legislature, and I think that's where we're going to see the most impact from choosing good judges for these roles. 

Matt Peiken: So we've touched a lot on your sense of values around justice, criminal justice, and we're talking about reproductive rights. What are some other bellwether issues that are important to you that you think do come up with some regularity at the Court of Appeals?

Martin Moore: I love that question. I think it's been interesting how we've seen campaigns play out in judicial races because judicial standards limits what we can talk about. If you comment too much on certain decisions, you might be conflicted out of them. So what I've been trying to do is take my experience and a values focused approach of this is what I've cared about as a commissioner. Here's what I've advocated for as a commissioner. This is what the constitution and certain things mean to me.

So as a commissioner, when I talk to people about. For example, education school funding. That is a big topic of conversation in our community. You probably saw we had our joint school board county commission meeting last week. So it was a really good opportunity to have this conversation and sharing with people that we have to, as localities, decide [00:15:00] what we do with what Raleigh is going to do or what we're going to do with a court decision that says, Leandro may or may not be being enforced. That's active appellate case law that our counties and our communities are going to have to wrestle with if we're going to talk about legitimate school funding.

And I think that's those are those moments that really resonate with people that the courts aren't just 5000 ft view, crazy high level constitutional interpretation. It's localized. It's talking about how it's going to impact our community and what kind of school system We're going to have and that's not coming from our legislature. That's coming from our bench 

Matt Peiken: But at the same time, the legislature is passing things like school choice quote unquote. The voucher program, you could read right through that in a lot of ways to say this is just redirecting public money into private hands and steering More money into the haves and away from the have nots.

How can you, as an appellate judge, when Raleigh is stamping in legislature, in law, this is [00:16:00] state law, that we can do this, how can you, as an appellate judge, go not necessarily you want to, quote, go against what's coming down from Raleigh, but you have your set of values. How can your set of values play out when what's happening in Raleigh might be going against that wave?

Martin Moore: I think the big part is Looking back to what we have in front of us, our state is a great state in so many ways, but one of the interesting things that's really resonated with people is that education specifically mentioned in our state constitution. That's not something that many, that a ton of states have.

So being able to share with people, this isn't just a legislative question. Let's have a conversation about what our current bench thinks in terms of what the obligation is to public schools, what education means to them, and where their priorities are in applying the law as it's written, because we do see a lot of that.

But I share with people one of my core values is that I don't feel beholden to necessarily what People's political ambitions are either on the court or in the legislature. I'm going to recognize what our documents [00:17:00] say, what the constitution says and where the values of the people of North Carolina are, because we have to actively interpret what's in front of us.

And I, I don't know that people have necessarily gathered that. The court of appeals is not there just to say everything the legislature does is constitutional when you disagree with them that can be okay Too and we have to be open about Electing judges who are willing to make those calls even if it's going to make them unpopular You have a duty to follow the law, even if your friend is sitting over across the street.

Matt Peiken: Yeah, now I noticed you're running for what's called seat 15.

It's a 15 seat 15 judge panel. Who decides how seats are? They're not geographic, geographically bound, right? Yeah, your seat you're shaking your head. No. So what makes a seat? 

Martin Moore: I think in this case, it's purely just numbers. They have a set number of judges that are prescribed.

There's no specific value to seat 15 versus seat 1, more of an election designation. But also clarifying who's, could be called from that's 15 judge, set of judges, [00:18:00] to serve on those three judge panels to hear those cases. I found it fascinating to have that number of judges. I think it's an interesting opportunity when we get it right because it means you get a diversity of perspectives.

You're correct because it's not geographically based. In theory, all of those folks could live in one part of the state. They could all be Raleigh or Charlotte based. So one of the great delights I've had is running from the west. We haven't had a judge Certainly not a Democratic judge from the West in quite some time.

Having a little bit of experience in looking at, as in my private practice, and having worked at a big firm, having worked in the Public Defender's Office, and seeing what rural communities are going through, I do think there's going to be a value add of having someone who is from a different part of the state share what I hear from local folks, whether it's here or Murphy, North Carolina, or Transylvania County, which is a big part of why I'm spending a lot of my time in this part of our state.

Matt Peiken: Interesting. Even though it is a statewide ballot, right? So everybody, whether it's on the banks of North Carolina or Charlotte or in the far Western part of the state, they all have you on the ballot. How does somebody, this [00:19:00] isn't a big budget campaign. It's not even on the radar of a lot of people who sits on the Court of Appeals.

How are you going about your campaigning? 

Martin Moore: So that's been the fun part. Having an opportunity to serve as a commissioner and kind of local politics, you get a feel for what you feel is most effective in terms of understanding people's priorities. A lot of our campaign for commission was door knocking, having those Proximate real conversations about local issues and you certainly can't do that with every county in our state But a huge state from here to Moorhead City It's a long drive But I do think that the same basic principles of talking to your neighbors finding communities that aren't used to hearing from judicial candidates. As you said, I've gone to some places even out here in the West that have thanked me had people come up and say I didn't know we had young people running for a judge, I didn't know we had African American men running for statewide office, and some places have just said I've never met a judicial candidate from outside of our specific district before.

So having those conversations has been the key for me and reaching beyond just certainly want to talk to your Democratic [00:20:00] base and people who share your values. But even reaching out to unaffiliateds and Republicans who are tired of extremism has been a delightful conversation because our state, I think a lot of times we look at the commercials.

We're looking at the people that we've elected in the past. We have a very contentious race at the top of our ticket. But there's a lot of conversations to be had about our values and a lot of conversations to be had about how we can make our state better from the judicial side. And I've been eager to fill that space with just genuine human connection.

Matt Peiken: You just talked about the extremism that a lot of people talk about and decry. You mentioned the top of the ticket. And yet it seems like Our politics today rewards extremism in a sense that you can't win unless you appeal to your base. 

You said you're talking with Republicans. You're talking about shared values. Where do you see the conversation of shared values as being penetrative with people who may not necessarily call themselves or consider themselves Democrats, let alone extremists on either side? What are some of [00:21:00] the things you're finding that you're talking about that are resonating with people in the middle?

Martin Moore: So from a baseline standpoint, I'd steal this from my friend, Anita Earls, Justice Earls serving on the North Carolina Supreme Court. Equal justice for all is not just a core tenet. It's something that we should embody as judges. It's something that should be at the forefront of our mind. And I think when I start in those skeptical places of extremists or people who don't share my political values sharing with them, look, let's start from a place of equal justice for everyone.

Can we agree that is a common critical thing? Most people will say yes to that. We're being completely candid with each other. We want a court system that's going to be fair and then we can break down what that fairness looks like. Here's the facts. Here are the issues. Here's the experience that I bring, having represented people from the highest tiers of wealthy in our community to folks who barely have enough money to make their bus trip to the courthouse and having those conversations and really connecting with people and saying, Hey, this is what court looks like for someone who doesn't have 300 extra dollars to pay even a traffic ticket.

Or here's what justice can look like [00:22:00] when we have a court that is focused on the rights of individuals, as opposed to the rights of businesses. And those conversations slowly start to penetrate, especially for those of us, because most of us are not billionaires. Most of us are just making our way through life and have some commonality there. 

And I think there's a lot of space to have conversations about those topics and the experience that I have as a commissioner in talking about education and talking about what health care looks like and talking about what true equality looks like in practice, as opposed to this theoretical concept of will be fair, but quote unquote, taking care of all people in our court system, make sure that we're doing What the Constitution prescribes as opposed to imposing a political agenda has been something that I've had people respond very well to. 

Matt Peiken: Now From what I understand just from reading at on the Court of Appeals website Seems like it's a pretty heavy caseload You're you work in three judge panels and that you rotate around so you're not with the same two justices for any real length of time It's about 12 cases every two weeks that you're seeing and each judge writes about two [00:23:00] opinions a week That's A lot of, it seems like a lot of work.

Does all this happen in person or is it remote? How do you conduct the work of an appellate judge? 

Martin Moore: I think every judge has a little bit of flexibility in how they want to go about that. Certainly can only speak for myself and what my approach is going to be when, if I'm fortunate enough to serve. But I think there's value in sitting down with your colleagues and having those conversations.

I think our opinions become more nuanced when we have that exchange of ideas. I recognize political, politically right now, we have a demographic of. Of the 15 judges, 11 are currently Republican, four Democrats. But I think in any three judge panel, we have to have those same conversations we're doing right now on the campaign trail and sharing with people one on one in person ideally, but if phone call works, we'll do that, but just making sure that we're talking to each other and saying, Hey, it's not, I'm not deciding this on political grounds.

Here's what I interpret the law to mean. Here's why I feel the way that I feel. Here's why I think what I'm thinking, and this is what my experience of being in court has meant to me and why it applies to this case, and I'm hopeful that when I get to serve, we'll have an opportunity to have those face to face [00:24:00] conversations and really look people in the eye as we're making these critical decisions about people's lives.

Because to your point we're talking about policy issues and the law. But we're also talking about the individuals whose cases these are, right? These are real people, I represent some of them right now in front of the Court of Appeals, who are having their matters decided and they're hoping that politics doesn't make its way into whatever conversations are happening in those three judge panels.

They're hoping that, The law is going to be heard and that people are going to read the briefs that we're working so hard on and put in front of them and not become subject to a greater political agenda that has nothing to do with the merits of their case. 

Matt Peiken: To be clear though, so the work that you do, when you're primarily reviewing documents from the cases that come to you, you're not, there's no testimony in front of you as judges, correct?

Martin Moore: That's partially correct. Yes, there's no testimony that said everything that's in there's what's called the record on appeal. And when that's prepared by the attorneys from the trial level or from the appellate level on up, that gives a brief kind of snippet can usually it's been between 20 and 80 pages worth of documents that you're looking at.

[00:25:00] So you're not going to hear from the experts directly. You're reviewing that testimony. You're seeing whether those experts were properly qualified. You're digging into those, as you said, legal issues but there are oral arguments before the court and oftentimes you'll, you can be pulled before the court and they'll ask you to explain.

How does this expert's qualification not mesh with constitutional standards? And then we get a lot of digging into those issues. So you're correct there is no expert testimony per se. But I think having that background in trial experience myself, having done many jury trials, it's helpful to know what questions to ask.

Because a lot of times you'll find yourself saying. We can't decide the law unless we know what this expert is thinking and how the process works. And without that critical context, it's very difficult to get it right. 

Matt Peiken: And, but this all happens remotely, right? You're not all in the same physical space, correct?

Martin Moore: You don't have to be. It's ultimately up to the judges. There are some judges who prefer to work in their chambers in Raleigh and will meet with other judges. I would have to wait and see what the court composition is and how cooperative folks would be toward that. But I think it would be a really important thing to at least semi-regularly [00:26:00] check in with people so you can be aware of where each other stands. Of course, I can't bring anyone to the table, but I do think there's a collaborative element, and that's the point of our three judge panels, is for in person collaboration as opposed to remote.

One of the benefits I'll say is when that's not happening, I do look forward to staying in Asheville. I want to be in this community. I want people to know that they have a judge who's local, proximate, and hearing kind of boots on the ground what's happening in our communities, because that does weigh in heavily to the value set and the mindset of our judges. And if everyone's concentrated in one municipality, that's certainly not great for diversity of perspective. So I'm hoping to balance those two things between working remotely and also working proximate to my colleagues. 

Matt Peiken: Yeah, you mentioned the importance to you of staying in Asheville. If you were to win this seat on the Court of Appeals, do you intend to stay on the county commission?

Martin Moore: I would not be able to stay on the county commission. So there'd be one year left on my term as of the date of the election. 

Matt Peiken: And what about your private practice? Will that also be shelved while you're on the Court of Appeals? 

Martin Moore: That's correct. I cannot hold [00:27:00] a current caseload while serving as a judge.

Matt Peiken: Wow, this is a big investment on your part. It's a real life shift in a sense, I would imagine, that you had to carefully consider where do you want your future to be. And I imagine the Court of Appeals, it is time boxed. There's a term limit, right? What is it, eight years? That's correct. There's an eight year term limit.

Assuming you win this seat, assuming you serve for a full eight years, what do you want to be doing? 

Martin Moore: Ideal world, I'd love to bring, as I mentioned before, that collaborative approach and wanting to learn and work with my colleagues there, but also help humanize the court in a way. I want people in Western North Carolina To be aware of what we're doing.

So I think a big part of that, a big part of my campaign has been transparency. So on the bench that looks a little bit different than perhaps county commission where everything's publicly recorded. We have very invested people who are watching every meeting, Probably yourself included. I don't think that's happening at the court level, So I think being able to bring back that perspective and say hey here are 15 cases we decided this quarter, Let's have a community town hall or conversation about how this impacts your daily [00:28:00] life, or even knowing who to contact back in our home communities when it's all said and done, sharing with people, after the opinion's written, of course, hey, this is what we did, and this is how I think it's going to impact local communities, having been on that other side of County Commission.

We don't spend every day talking about Court of Appeals decisions, despite the fact that they impact Asheville and many other municipalities so, I Think if we can find a way to make it more proximate, we can get ahead of this curve of only realizing in the bad times what the court's doing and focus on here's where there can be a value add from having this perspective out in Raleigh.

Matt Peiken: Is there anything we haven't talked about, either about your background or forward looking or just things you're seeing happening? You mentioned 11 Republicans, 4 Democrats on the Court of Appeals. Anything that we haven't talked about around any of that that you want to amplify or talk more about? 

Martin Moore: I know there's a very, not very much oxygen in the room because we have so many people running this year from top of the ticket down the school board, but sharing with people the critical role that our courts play in our lives now, and I think it's on display in a way that has been unrecognizable from the time I was a child.

I [00:29:00] remember my first really foray into trying to understand politics was selecting Thurgood Marshall as the older professional I wanted to dress up like in, in kindergarten and having that conversation with my mom and dad and about what that looks like and why it was so historically important to now being in a place of just hoping that our justices aren't making political decisions.

And it's just been a little bit of a paradigm shift. So hoping people can recognize and see up close that when our court system works well, it can do amazing, wonderful things in people's lives. A lot of that enables local communities, Buncombe across our state, even setting a tone for the entire Southeast.

These decisions are resonating throughout the south and I want people to walk away from this campaign cycle feeling fired up and excited. Not something you typically hear around judicial races. People aren't fired up and necessarily saying we have to win our court of appeals. But if that's going to be, as you astutely mentioned, the workhorse court for our state, we're going to have so many cases being decided at that level and only some small percentage making their way to the Supreme Court, we have to get it right the first time. 

And I'm really hoping that people will see a lot of [00:30:00] your Supreme Court cases are going to be critical. They're going to be binding for our state. But the lion's share of what's going to impact most of your life is going to be decided at that level by a three judge panel who most people have never heard of, and I'd like to change that so we can get that quality representation on the bench.