ANITA EARLS: In a dissent, Earls argued that Duke Energy should not be allowed to charge some customers more than others. Earls said that imposing higher rate increases on residents of western North Carolina than on those in the eastern part of the state was “plainly unlawful.” Supporters of her position argue ratepayers should be treated equally and that regional pricing shouldn't be used to boost shareholder returns. Critics note that rates may lawfully reflect regional differences in the cost of serving customers.

ANITA EARLS: Earls is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Votes! South Atlantic, which supports abortion access. She has expressed disagreement with the U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

ANITA EARLS: Earls disagreed with a North Carolina Supreme Court decision relating to the state's responsibility to adequately fund public education. In her dissent, Earls argued that “the State has a duty to guard and maintain the right of every North Carolina schoolchild to access a sound basic education…” The majority held that courts cannot direct how the legislature spends money. In describing her dissent, Earls’ campaign cites school voucher programs that send public dollars to private schools.

ANITA EARLS: In a 2022 decision, Earls ruled to uphold healthcare benefits for 220,000 North Carolina public workers, including former teachers, law enforcement officials, and other state employees. The case involved a 2011 bill passed by the General Assembly that required some current and retired teachers and state employees to pay healthcare premiums to keep their existing coverage, although they had been promised that their retiree healthcare would be premium-free. In her decision, Earls argued that the retired public sector workers were entitled to the benefits they were promised when they were hired. Critics point to the partial dissent in the case which noted there was a genuine factual dispute over whether the right to the benefits existed, as well as the cost to taxpayers.

ANITA EARLS: Earls previously ran the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Voting Rights Project. In a 2022 decision, Earls ruled that district maps drawn by the North Carolina General Assembly were unconstitutional. In the decision of the Court, the Justices agreed that the maps were an “egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander …designed to enhance Republican performance, and thereby give a greater voice to those voters than to any others.” Critics hold that partisan gerrymandering is a political question that the Constitution assigns to the legislature, not the courts.