August 26, 2025 • 39 mins
Judge Toby Hampson, a key player on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, joins the crew of Muck You! to chat about the wild world of judicial elections and why keeping Democratic voices in the courts is crucial. He dives deep into the nitty-gritty of how the court operates and the potential consequences of a complete Republican sweep in the upcoming elections. Hampson shares his journey from a North Carolina public school to the bench, sprinkling in some humor about his past as the “dumb jock” at a math and science school—who knew judges could be so relatable? The gang discusses the importance of upholding the law in a landscape increasingly colored by partisanship, with Hampson stressing the need for balance and the vital role judges play in ensuring justice for all North Carolinians. Buckle up for a lively conversation filled with laughs, insights, and some serious calls to action for folks to support judicial candidates who stand for what’s right!
Diving headfirst into the murky waters of judicial politics, the latest episode of Muck U features Judge Toby Hampson of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The trio—hosts David Wheeler and Colonel Mo Davis, along with Judge Hampson—explore the intricacies of the state's judicial system while sprinkling in some light-hearted banter. Judge Hampson shares his journey from the public school system to the prestigious School of Science and Math, and eventually to the bench, all while tossing in a few jokes about being the 'dumb jock' in a school full of brainiacs. They dig deep into the implications of upcoming elections, particularly the significance of maintaining Democratic representation in a court currently leaning Republican. The conversation flows from the role of the Court of Appeals to the impact of judicial decisions on everyday North Carolinians, emphasizing the importance of public trust in the judiciary.
As they navigate through complex legal concepts, the hosts keep the tone playful, making sure to reference the sometimes absurd nature of political campaigns. Judge Hampson highlights the importance of having dissenting opinions in the court system, using a recent case as a prime example of how one voice can tip the scales of justice. The hosts chuckle at the quirks of judicial life, comparing it to sports commentary—after all, judges are supposed to call balls and strikes, right? With the judicial landscape in North Carolina shifting, the trio also discusses strategies for engaging voters across the state, ensuring that folks from Asheville to Wilmington have their voices heard come election day.
In a world where political partisanship seems to seep into every nook and cranny of government, Judge Hampson passionately advocates for the integrity of the judiciary. He expresses concern about the growing perception of judges as political entities rather than impartial arbiters of justice. The episode wraps up with a heartfelt call to action, encouraging listeners to support judicial candidates who prioritize fairness and independence. With laughter, insight, and a dash of self-deprecation, this installment of Muck You reminds us that even in the serious world of law, there's always room for a good joke—or a good drink, as they discuss their favorite bourbons and IPAs. It's a blend of legal savvy and camaraderie that leaves you both informed and entertained, proving that justice doesn't have to be a dry affair.
Takeaways:
- Muck You dives deep into the muck of corruption and hypocrisy, revealing truths that others try to hide.
- Judge Toby Hampson brings a wealth of experience from public schools to the NC Court of Appeals, emphasizing education's role in his journey.
- The NC Court of Appeals plays a critical role in reviewing legal decisions, ensuring justice across the state, no matter the case.
- There's a significant push for Democrats to maintain balance in the NC judiciary, especially with critical...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:03):
Welcome to Muck You!, thepodcast that exposes corruption,
calls out hypocrisy, and digsthrough the muck others try to bury.
I'm David Wheeler. You're withmy co host, Colonel Moe Davis. Over
to you, Moe, to introducetoday's special guest.
Well, thanks, David. And hey,it's great to be back. We've had
a little bit of a hiatus whilewe both been on vacation and done
(00:25):
some stuff. So good to be backwith you.
Again, we've had a long listof great guests and tonight is no
exception. Judge Toby Hampsonis one of the 15 judges on the North
Carolina Court of Appeals.He's one of the three judges that
are up for re election in2026. He's got an impressive background.
(00:47):
He's a graduate of the NorthCarolina School of Math and Sciences.
I can assure you I was notinvited to attend there. He went
to American University up inD.C. graduated from Campbell Law
School, and he's been servingon the court since 2018. So, judge,
judge Hampson, we really doappreciate you taking time to join
(01:10):
us.
Well, gentlemen, thanks forhaving me on. I really appreciate
it. Looking forward to the conversation.
All right, so how did you getinto the School of Science or of
Math and Science? I lived inDurham for a while and that was right
up the street from me, butthey never invited me in.
Well, I always joke that I wasthe dumb jock at Science and Math.
(01:32):
No, you know, I was verylucky. I was very lucky as a product
of North Carolina publicschools. You know, my mom was a math
instructor at SandhillsCommunity College down in Moore County.
I attended schools likeSandhills Farm Life elementary and
Union Pines High. And so Ithink, you know, all that really
(01:55):
gave me a really goodgrounding and, and just what an incredible
opportunity and experience tohave a school like the School of
Science and Math up in Durham.And of course now there's one in
Morganton too.
Right.
It's a really uniqueopportunity and I was glad to. Glad
to have it.
Yeah. And it's one of thosethings I think a lot of folks aren't
aware of that they really area real treasure for the state. Okay,
(02:20):
so you're one of 15 judges onthe North Carolina Court of Appeals.
There's currently a 12, 3Republican majority on the court.
And I guess just byhappenstance, the three judges that
are up for re election nexttime around are all Democrats. And
it looks like the Republicanswould prefer to have a 15, 0 court
(02:40):
of appeals. So can you Explainto folks just a bit that, you know,
aren't, you know, intimatelyfamiliar with our judicial system.
What's the role of the NorthCarolina Court of Appeals?
Sure. So in North Carolina,there are effectively three levels
of courts. First, you have thetrial courts in each county, in all
(03:05):
100 counties all around NorthCarolina, our district and superior
courts. And those are thecourts most people are familiar with.
Right. That's where you go ifyou have a traffic ticket or if you
have a court date and you havea single judge sitting out there,
maybe a jury. That's where wehave evidence and trials and the
things most people arefamiliar with. At the other end of
(03:28):
the spectrum is our NorthCarolina Supreme Court. That is the
highest court in our state.And so the North Carolina Court of
Appeals sits in the middle.And the North Carolina Court of Appeals
hears Appeals from all 100counties in North Carolina, all across
the state, in practicallyevery area of the law, both criminal
(03:51):
and civil. On the criminalside, we'll hear everything from
an appeal of a DUI, you know,traffic stops and DUIs, all the way
up to first degree murder,where life in prison is imposed.
On the civil side, we hearjust the whole gamut. Everything
(04:12):
from family law cases topersonal injury cases, cases involving
parental rights, casesinvolving environmental permits,
property cases, contractcases, tax workers, comp. Just. Just
the whole run of the mill. Soreally, if you have a legal issue
(04:34):
in North Carolina, one way oranother, our court has spoken on
it and issued a decisioninvolving that area of law. We don't
hear evidence. We simply lookto see if there was an error committed
by the trial court below. Sowe're looking for, for legal errors
(04:54):
and issuing opinions that helpguide the judges, the lawyers and
the litigants themselvesfigure out all these different areas
of law.
Yeah, I guess anotherimportant question is there are 15
judges on the court. I noticedthat seven of the 15 are from Campbell
Law School. So in that court stacking.
(05:18):
Well, you know, we're, youknow, we're, we're really proud of
Campbell Law. We always feltlike it gave us just like School
of Science and Math. It gaveus a really good background in practicing
law and particularlypracticing law in North Carolina
when we're dealing with thesestate specific issues. I always feel
(05:39):
like it gave us a really good,good grounding in that regard.
Yeah, my JD is from NorthCarolina Central, and it looks like
the only member of the courtis your colleague, Jefferson Griffin,
who is a Central graduate. Sowe're, we're underrepresented. It
looks like there's There arethree of you up for, for reelect
(06:00):
for reelection, John Arrowwoodand Allegra Campbell Collins. And
I think, correct me if I'mwrong, she is not not running for
re election. Is that right?
That's correct. Judge Collinsis not running for reelection. So
that will be an open seat onyour, on your ballot. It's in 2026.
But as you mentioned before,these are the, the last three seats
(06:27):
held by Democrats on the courtand they're all up in 2026.
In all of these seats they're,they're statewide. So this isn't
something you only have to beconcerned about if you live in a
particular area. This affectseverybody from Murphy to Maneu.
That's exactly right. These,these are statewide elections and
(06:47):
that's true of our Court ofAppeals and it's true of the SU Court
as well. So they areabsolutely critical elections. You
know, the only other statewiderace on the, on the ballot in 2026
will be this, this, thislittle Senate race we keep hearing
about.
Right? Yeah, that's going tobe interesting. And a lot of money
(07:07):
spent here in North Carolinaon that one, I bet. Let me, you know,
like you said, you know, wetalked about it's a, a 123 Republican
majority right now. So whydoes it matter? I mean if it goes
15 0, why would that make adifference? I mean didn't justice
is supposed to be blind, sowhy would it, does it matter trying
to hang on to three Democratic seats?
(07:30):
Well, I think a great exampleright now was in fact the litigation
that involved Judge JeffersonGriffin and Justice Allison Riggs.
And you know, we sit in threejudge panels. And so I, I was assigned
to the panel hearing that casewhen it came to my court. And you
(07:56):
know, and I wrote a dissent,meaning the other two judges who
happen to be Republicans wrotean opinion that would have potentially
changed the outcome of thatSupreme Court race. You know, where
remember There was a 734 votemargin of victory there and that
(08:19):
would have potentially thrownout the ballots of over 60,000 folks
here in North Carolina as wellas potentially throwing out the ballots
of our military members andother overseas voters and their adult
children that would have allbeen thrown out during the night
(08:40):
from in that race, which wouldhave had the potential to change
the race. I dissented. So wehad a 2 to 1 vote in that case and
I wrote a long dissent. Andthat dissent, while it didn't carry
the day in our courtultimately, in my view, helped provide
(09:00):
a roadmap for first, frankly,our state Supreme Court and Then
subsequently a federal judgeto really step in and say, listen,
we shouldn't be changing therules of an election after votes
have been cast. Right. Andwhile the election is ongoing or
over. And so I think that's acritical example of how having even
(09:25):
one dissenting voice at thecourt makes a, makes a huge, huge
difference. It makes a,provides, it provides balance. It
provides a differentperspective. And, you know, and we're,
we're committed to upholdingthe rule of law. We're committed
to standing up for the rightsof all North Carolinians. And so
(09:48):
I think it's, I think it'sabsolutely crucial that we maintain
democratic voices on our courts.
Yeah, I noticed in thatparticular case that was Jefferson
Griffin vs. North CarolinaState Board of Elections and Allison
Riggs came out on April 7th ofthis year. The, the majority opinion
was 36 pages and yourdescending opinion was 66 pages.
(10:12):
But there was one part inthere in particular that really caught
my attention. And here's whatyou wrote. You said the, the majority
makes much of the fact.Eligibility to vote is determined
as of election day. Despiteprofessing this basic tenant, the
majority changes the rules ofthe 2024 election and only for one
(10:32):
race months after electionDay, it does so even though there
is no actual showing orforecast that any challenged voter
was not registered orotherwise unqualified to vote. Worse
still, with no supportingauthority, the majority invents out
of whole cloth an illusory 15day, quote, cure, period. That is
(10:53):
no remedy at all. This istruly legislating from the bench.
And legislating from the benchis one of those terms. I mean, it
seems like, you know, when,when there's a Democrat in the White
House, we hear a lot aboutdeath, debt and deficit. And when
there are Democrats on thecourt, we hear a lot about legislating
from the bench. But why'd youput that line in there?
(11:17):
Because that's, in my view,that's exactly what it was. It was
by judicial fiat, a courtimposing new election rules that
were not promulgated bystatute. Right. They weren't passed
by the General Assembly. Theyweren't adopted by an executive agency
(11:42):
like a state, like the StateBoard of Elections through its rulemaking
process. These were, thesewere rules that were being imposed
by, by judges. And, and you'reright, you know, we're, we're, we're,
we're often accused of that.But I think it's, it's critical to,
(12:02):
to identify that when it'shappening, because, you know, our
job is to interpret and applythe law, you know, it's, it's not
to make the law. And so, andthat's what I tried to do in that
dissent, was to try and simplyinterpret and apply the law as it
(12:24):
stood and not create somethingjust out of, out of whole clothes.
Yeah, yeah, I remember. I'vebeen a member of the, the U.S. supreme
Court bar for about 37 yearsand did some appellate work there
with. Back when Ken Starr wasthe Solicitor General. But I remember
in when Chief Justice Roberts,during his confirmation hearing said,
(12:48):
you know, the judge, the, therole of an appellate judge is to
call balls and strikes. Itdoesn't seem like that's the case
anymore. And, and I waslooking at the numbers. Gallup, you
know, does a poll every yearwhere they look at confidence in
different institutions andconfidence in the courts. In 2002,
it was 50%. This year it's 27.So it's been cut almost in half in
(13:13):
a little over two decades. Sowhat do you attribute that to? And
how do we restore confidencein our judicial system?
Yeah, you know, you know,Hamilton wrote in the, in the Federalist
Papers. And, you know, andI'll, I'll paraphrase and don't worry,
I won't sing it, but, youknow, the, the, the courts are really
(13:36):
of the three branches.
Actually, Judge, if you couldsing it, that would be terrific.
That'll boost our ratings.
Yeah, come on, let's.
I don't know, it might bring aswift end to the podcast. I don't
know. No, if, you know,instead of the three branches of
government, you know, thejudiciary is the weakest branch.
(13:57):
You know, the executive hasthe power of the sword. You know,
the president has the army andthe law enforcement capability. The
legislature has the pursestrings. Right. They're the ones
that pass the budgets andappropriate funds. What the courts
have is the trust of thepeople. And, you know, that's our
(14:19):
only mechanism for reallyhaving any authority, for having,
having a mandate, and for, fortrusting that people will follow
our rulings as if they believein a true independent judiciary.
Because we are the directliaison between the people and the
(14:39):
other two branches ofgovernment. Right. That's where you
come to challenge statutes.That's where you come to defend yourself
against criminal chargesbrought by the state. That's where
people interact with the lawis through our courts. And so I think
what we've seen is a constantdrumbeat attempting to politicize
(15:05):
the courts to make thedecisions political. Here in North
Carolina, judicial races weremade, partisan races. So we run as
Democrats, we run asRepublicans. And so I think there's
just this increasing senseamongst folks that. That our courts
(15:30):
are more beholden to thepolitics than. Than. Than before.
You know, I think judges werealways viewed as being above politics,
irrespective of yourphilosophical leaning. But. But these
days, I think just thatinjection of. And constant drumbeat
of partisanship, you know, hasreally, I think, does threaten to.
(15:53):
To diminish public trust inthe judiciary. And I think it's incumbent
upon us as judges to work tomaintain and restore that. That public
trust. It's absolutelycritical that, you know, our courts
are there for the people andnot just for partisan interests.
(16:18):
So, you know, so it's mybelief, you know, yeah, we really
should stand for the rule oflaw and to uphold justice and equity
for everybody, for all NorthCarolinians, no matter who you are,
where you come from, or howmuch or little you have.
So.
So, Toby, one of the thingsthat Mo and I enjoy talking about
(16:40):
is kind of the way Democratshave done things in the past. Is
this a situation where maybewe should be partisan in the courts.
You know, the Republicans arenot going to be less partisan. That's
clear from the latest, youknow, Rick's decision at the appeals
level, at least. You know, I'mnot advocating that, you know, you
(17:04):
take cases and, and rule in myfavor because I'm in court all the
time. But is there a situationwhen we should be partisan? I'm putting
you on the spot, man.
No.
You are.
No. And that's good, because Ithink one of the places that we,
(17:28):
as certainly as Democraticjudicial candidates have to be braver,
we have to be bolder, andthat's in being willing to talk about
our values, which is. Which issomething I think, as Democrats,
we've been reticent to do. Asjudicial candidates, we want to run
(17:50):
on our experience, on ourcompetence, our ability to do the
job. The fact that, you know,we believe in a fair, impartial,
independent judiciary, which,by the way, is a Democratic value,
you know, that perhaps in someways, we do lose the electorate in
(18:19):
many instances. And so. Andwhen I say talk about our values,
I don't mean talk about howwe'd rule on any particular. Particular
case or rule we have anyparticular interests. But, you know,
that we do stand up for therule of law, that we do believe in
our fundamental constitutionalfreedoms and rights under our federal
(18:43):
and state constitution, andthat. And that we, as Democratic
judges are the ones standingup for those values. And so I think.
I think that is. There is anelement there where it's absolutely
critical that we, we are ableto express our values as Democrats
(19:03):
and Democratic judges for the,and to the point is if we, if we
do that and we express thosevalues, then we will be judges not
just for Democrats and notagainst Republicans, but for all
North Carolinians, becausethat at the end of the day is truly
(19:23):
what we stand for. You know,you know, when I, when I wrote that
dissent in, in the SupremeCourt election case, you know, I,
I didn't, I wasn't looking atthe voter registrations of, of, of
who the potential voters were,you know, and so we, I was just writing
(19:47):
to uphold what I thought wasright under the law and the facts
of the case.
Right, all right. Well, thatwas a very diplomatic and judicial
answer. I appreciate that. Toa pretty broad, broad faced question.
So let's, let's talk politicsa little bit here. Obviously, you
(20:08):
know, I'm a big fan of yours.We met when I was running for the
state Senate down in, at theRutherford County Democrats dinner
and went out afterwards andhad a bunch of laughs and a good
time and, and I've reallyenjoyed getting to know you and your
wife and. But why did youchoose being a judge instead of legislative
(20:29):
or executive branch?
Well, for me, it, I, it's,it's, it suits my skill set. You
know, people often say, youknow, why, what made you want to
become a judge? And for me itwas very specific. I wanted to be
a court of appeals judge.That's where I grew up as a lawyer.
(20:50):
I was a law clerk for severaljudges on our court of Appeals. As
a young lawyer, most of mypractice was in the North Carolina
Court of Appeals, handlingappeals of all kinds of, you know,
I, and, and I love the work.Our work is, is primarily research
(21:11):
and writing, driven andthat's, you know, and I love that.
I love using writing and to,to persuade. I love using, you know,
writing to advocate. And sofor me, yeah, that, that the judicial
direction was the one thatseemed to fit most nicely with my,
(21:35):
you know, with my particularset of skills.
I guess I'm curious after the,your dissent and the, the Supreme
Court case, our relations withJudge Griffin.
You know, we, I will say we,we've made, we've managed to maintain
(21:57):
cordial cordiality. We're, we,we're, you know, we're not, we're
not necessarily close, but youknow, we maintain a level of professionalism
right at the court. You know,I always say one thing about our
court that may be differentthan, than the legislature is we
actually have to get the workdone, you know, we have to decide
(22:19):
cases. We have to, even if wedisagree, we have to work together
to get the opinion out. Wedon't have the ability just to close
up shop and end the sessionand go away without issuing opinions.
It's absolutely critical thatwe do the work of the state. So that's
something we continue to do.
(22:42):
Back when I was doing somework at the US Supreme Court, the
clerk back then was a guynamed Bill Suiter, who was a retired
army two star. And itsurprised me because, you know, the
perception was that, you know,that the opposite ends of the spectrum
back in, in those days was youhad Scalia on one end and Ruth Bader
(23:03):
Ginsburg on the other. And Iremember General Suter telling me
that, you know, one of thethings that probably surprised the
public the most were how closeof friends they were, that ideologically
they were polar opposites, buttheir families, they enjoyed the
opera and they'd go out to,you know, dinner and to the opera.
(23:24):
And, you know, personally theywere great friends, even though when
they put the robes on, theywere typically, you know, diametrically
opposed. And I'm justwondering, is it that same kind of
relationship on the court of Appeals?
Yeah, you know, in large part,yeah. You know, we, we generally
(23:46):
are all, all get along prettywell. You know, it's, it's a lot
different at the court thesedays. You know, it used to be everybody
was in the courthouse and inchambers. Now I see a lot of my colleagues
kind of work more remotely.And so, so I, I miss those kind of
(24:07):
organic conversations whereyou can, you know, debate, offer
suggestions, offerimprovements, you know, collaborate
or, or, or disagree, you know,kind of in person and through those
organic, natural conversationsthat happen in the courthouse. But,
but, you know, these days ithappens a lot more over email. So,
(24:31):
you know, that's a, that'sdefinitely been a change in the last
couple of years.
Right. Well, you know, NorthCarolina truly is a purple state,
you know, over the last coupleof elections, and we voted Republican
on the presidential side andDemocratic on the gubernatorial side.
And, you know, it seems likewe truly are like a 50, 50 state.
(24:51):
So, you know, as an attorney,it, it's somewhat concerning to see
that, you know, there'sRepublicans fought really hard for
that one more, one more seat.I mean, I don't know what you can
do with a, you know, with a,was it a 6:1 majority? You can't
do with a 5, 2 majority on theSupreme Court or what you can do
(25:13):
with 15 judges instead of 12on the court of Appeals. But do you
see any path forward to makingthe judiciary less, less partisan?
I do. I do see a path and Ithink, you know, sort of begins in
(25:34):
2026. As you said, we are 123court and currently our state supreme
court is a 5 to 2 Republicanmajority court. So in 2026, on our
supreme Court, Justice AnitaEarls, a Democrat, is the only Supreme
Court justice up for election.And on our court, as you said, the
(25:58):
three Court of Appeal seats,including mine, are up all Democrats.
So I think the first thing wehave to do is hold each of those
seats in 2026 when re electionand hold that, that third seat on
our court. In 2028, there arethree seats that come up on our state
(26:18):
Supreme Court in five seatsthat are up on my court. And y' all
can do the math. You know, ifwe can pick up seats in 2028, that
will go a long way torestoring a more, more balance to
both courts. But it's criticalthen that we keep these seats in
(26:40):
2026 so that there are thosepickup opportunities in 2028 to bring
balance to the court. Andthrough that, I think hopefully help,
you know, at least kind ofhelp maybe help restore that public
trust and help, you know, helpkind of work to take some of that
(27:02):
partisanship out of the courts.
Yeah, I'd like to see that. Imean, obviously in the legislative
branch, you know, it'sexpected to be partisan, the executive
branch the same way. But, youknow, sure, it'll be nice to see
the public have confidencethat there's at least one branch
where, you know, justice isblind and it really is calling balls
(27:23):
and strikes and not, you know,not going into it trying to achieve
a particular outcome. So forfolks out here, you know, if you're,
you know, folks out in Claycounty and Graham county and up in
Mitchell county, what's yourplan on how you're going to get to
them and, and get them on, onyour side come election Day?
(27:44):
Yeah, well, I, you know, Ithink, number one, you know, this
is a statewide election and,and I plan on making it a statewide
election. And for me, onething I can do is, is show up. And
that is. So that's somethingthat I am committed to doing, is
coming out and meeting voterswhere they are in person. I'm going
(28:06):
to put a lot of miles on theold Jeep and, but, but I, but I love
it. And you know, hopefullythrough that, you know, I think if,
if folks get to see, you know,judges outside of their natural habitat
and See them as for who theyare and let them judge me, let them
(28:28):
get to know me. But, yeah,we're. We're. We're definitely focused
on making this a fullstatewide campaign. I think it's
absolutely crucial that we.That we try to get out to as many
counties and as manycommunities as we can from the, the.
From Cherokee, you know, outto the Outer Banks. I think it's
(28:51):
absolutely critical becausethe reality is we are a statewide
court. We decide cases from.From every community in the state,
and that doesn't matterwhether it's the big city of Charlotte
or Sparta. It's. It's, youknow, our decisions have to be able
(29:12):
to be applied in every one ofthose communities. We have to understand,
you know, the impact ourdecisions are having in communities
big and small, the impactthey're having on individuals and
their cases. So, you know, forme, that's one of the silver linings
(29:34):
of judicial elections is itdoes sort of force us to actually,
you know, get out of thecourthouse and actually, you know,
have to talk to the folks thatour decisions really do impact. You
know, and I. So I think thatmakes us. Makes us better judges
to understand the real worldimpacts of our decisions and understand
that we're not just decidingcases in a vacuum, that we have a.
(29:57):
We have a duty. We have a dutyto the people of North Carolina.
I'm curious, you know, the. Inthe federal system, judges or lifetime
appointments, and obviouslyhere in our state, it's for a term
of years. What's yourperception on which, you know, is.
Creates a. A better perceptionof impartial justice?
(30:23):
Yeah. You know, I think thereare. There are pros and cons to both.
I mean, I think you can. Youcan look at the, you know, the appointment
process and say, well, thoseare political employees, right? They're.
They're appointed becausethey're. They have some favorable
view of the. Of the, you know,the current administration or whatever.
(30:45):
And so, so you can even, youknow, I mean, we see it, right? We
see it on. At the federallevel and the US Supreme Court level
where there's, you know, wesee the political appointments and
the confirmation fights, like,you know, which are usually partisan.
You know, North Carolina likesto elect judges. It's in our state
(31:10):
constitution. And in a way, itmakes, you know, the judges answerable
to the people. And so, youknow, that's a much more kind of
close relationship, I guess,in that Hamiltonian view in North
Carolina of the people andtheir judges in the courts. And so,
(31:31):
you know, I think there's anelement to say people are electing
their judges. They're electingthe folks they trust to be their
judges. So I think there's agood argument to say that judicial
elections actually may be away of helping increase the public's
trust of the judiciary andmaybe create a more diverse bench
(31:54):
as well.
So, Toby, our judge. What,what can folks do? You know, we have
a nice audience of folks fromacross the United States as well
as in North Carolina. Well,how can they help you?
Well, number one, you can joinour campaign at judgetobyhampton.com
(32:16):
you can learn more about meand sign up for updates. Also, this
is a statewide campaign. It's,it's going to be hugely expensive.
You know, I, I often joke thatwe're running a, you know, senatorial
or gubernatorial campaign on acounty commission budget. But this
year these races are going tobe massively expensive. And so you
(32:39):
can contributeonline@judgetobyhampton.com or you
can go to ActBlue and find mypage there. You can search Hampson.
Amazingly, it comes right up.And then also it's actblue.com tobyhampton
personal for contributions.That would be honestly, that is the,
at this stage of the campaign,that's the most critical piece is
(33:01):
allowing us to have thefunding to onboard campaign staff
and to get that message outtruly statewide to the millions of
North Carolina voters thatwe're going to have to contact. Yeah.
Well, as you will hear from Moand me, getting out there is part
(33:23):
of the battle. I mean,spending time out with, not just
with active Democrats, but,you know, real voters out here. And
that takes money, folks. Soplease go to. It's Judge Toby Hansen
dot com.
That's right.
And it's H A M P S O N. Alittle bit of disclosure here. I'm
(33:44):
a supporter of Toby's and bigfan of his. And Mo, can we potentially
count you in as a supporter ofToby's as well?
Absolutely. Even though, youknow, I'm biased against Campbell
because I went to Central,I'll still do it.
All right.
Well, cool.
You've got at least two votesout here in western North Carolina.
Do you think you'll have aprimary, Toby?
(34:06):
I am not anticipating aprimary. No, I, my eyes are all straight
on the general.
Okay, good. And any Democratsthat are thinking about it for, well,
there is one empty seat. Iguess they could run for that.
That's right.
But don't even think about itbecause you'll get a call from either
Mo or me. And, and you're notgoing to like that. Ask Bill Balla,
former chair of the NC11Democrats. Stay out of that one,
(34:29):
Toby. But, so let's, you know,read a. The end of end stages here.
What we haven't talked aboutit lately, Mo, Bourbon. What are
you drinking these days, Mo?Same thing.
Yeah.
I don't know if you saw. Therewas a big article I think I've mentioned
before. I. I'd gotten to be afan of. Fan of Uncle Nearest.
(34:49):
Yeah.
Yeah. And there's stories inthe last couple of weeks where they're
in some serious financialtroubles in the New York Times.
Oh, no.
So I'm trying to do my part tohelp keep them afloat, so.
All right, Toby, do you have afavorite libation that you drink
in a safe environment?
You know, in. In the quietmoments? I do like to sip on a bourbon,
(35:15):
but normally you'll catch mewith. With an ipa. And you guys have
a lot of really good ones out.
Yes, that's it. That'll getyou some votes out here.
Absolutely.
That's definitely a positivewestern North Carolina answer.
So in. In. Nobody else islistening here. It's just the three
of us. So are there any judgesthat carry flasks that you've seen
(35:43):
or heard?
Well, that's. That's the thingabout a flask, David.
All right, all right, allright. You don't have to answer that.
You don't have to answer that.All right, Toby, well, this has been
terrific. Thank you so muchfor doing this. You're a great North
Carolinian American and Mo andI are with you 100%. Why don't we
(36:05):
plan to do something out inhere and get folks in a room to get
to know you better? Yeah, thatmakes sense. And you're welcome back
to MUCU anytime to give folksan update. We like active candidates
and folks like hearingrepeatedly, not just once. So you've
got an open invitation.Anything else, Moe, before we close
it out?
(36:26):
No. Hey, it's been great toget. Get back into this, so let's.
We'll do it again.
Yeah, yeah. We'll get a littlemore active folks and start posting
at least one a week from hereon out, and we'll go from there.
Judge, any final parting words?
Well, just again, thank youall for. For having me. This has
(36:46):
been a lot of fun. I'veenjoyed the conversation and thanks
for. Thanks for pushing me alittle bit out of my comfort zone
to do this. I think it's. It'sabsolutely critical that we get the
word out about these statewidejudicial races. They are absolutely
crucial, you know, for, for,for our democracy. And so I appreciate
(37:07):
the work y' all do to get theword out and, and, you know, and
the fight. So, so thanks.
And, and listen, folks, Imean, if you think judges are something
that don't matter as much, youknow, ask Supreme Court Justice Riggs
about that. And again, youknow, Toby's dissent, even though
he lost at that level, wasused again in the Supreme Court to
(37:31):
justify returning Judge Riggsto the North Carolina Supreme Court.
So again, Judge Hampson, wewish you all the best. Please be
careful out there. Work yourass off. And folks, Judge Toby T
O b y Hampson.H-A-M-P-S-O-N.com Do Mo and I a favor,
(37:53):
sneak over there, throw thejudge 25 bucks and then next time
50. And then just keepdoubling it every month until you
don't have anything leftbecause this is pretty important.
Thank you for tuning in toMuck you with Colonel Moe Davis and
me, David Wheeler. If you likewhat you hear, help us keep shining
light on the mutual muck. Headto americanmuckrakers.com to donate
(38:17):
and subscribe to our substackfor updates and exclusive content.
Until next time, stay loud,stay vigilant, and don't ever say
this in in the judge'scourtroom, but if you don't like
it, muck you.
By Colonel Mo Davis inAsheville and David Wheeler in Spruce
(38:38):
Pine, North Carolina. Thanksto our guest today, the honorable
Toby Hampson, judge on theNorth Carolina Court of Appeals.
Muck youk is produced byAmerican Muckrakers.
Welcome to Muck You!, thepodcast that exposes corruption,
calls out hypocrisy, and digsthrough the muck others try to bury.
I'm David Wheeler. You're withmy co host, Colonel Moe Davis. Over
to you, Moe, to introducetoday's special guest.
Well, thanks, David. And hey,it's great to be back. We've had
a little bit of a hiatus whilewe both been on vacation and done
(00:25):
some stuff. So good to be backwith you.
Again, we've had a long listof great guests and tonight is no
exception. Judge Toby Hampsonis one of the 15 judges on the North
Carolina Court of Appeals.He's one of the three judges that
are up for re election in2026. He's got an impressive background.
(00:47):
He's a graduate of the NorthCarolina School of Math and Sciences.
I can assure you I was notinvited to attend there. He went
to American University up inD.C. graduated from Campbell Law
School, and he's been servingon the court since 2018. So, judge,
judge Hampson, we really doappreciate you taking time to join
(01:10):
us.
Well, gentlemen, thanks forhaving me on. I really appreciate
it. Looking forward to the conversation.
All right, so how did you getinto the School of Science or of
Math and Science? I lived inDurham for a while and that was right
up the street from me, butthey never invited me in.
Well, I always joke that I wasthe dumb jock at Science and Math.
(01:32):
No, you know, I was verylucky. I was very lucky as a product
of North Carolina publicschools. You know, my mom was a math
instructor at SandhillsCommunity College down in Moore County.
I attended schools likeSandhills Farm Life elementary and
Union Pines High. And so Ithink, you know, all that really
(01:55):
gave me a really goodgrounding and, and just what an incredible
opportunity and experience tohave a school like the School of
Science and Math up in Durham.And of course now there's one in
Morganton too.
Right.
It's a really uniqueopportunity and I was glad to. Glad
to have it.
Yeah. And it's one of thosethings I think a lot of folks aren't
aware of that they really area real treasure for the state. Okay,
(02:20):
so you're one of 15 judges onthe North Carolina Court of Appeals.
There's currently a 12, 3Republican majority on the court.
And I guess just byhappenstance, the three judges that
are up for re election nexttime around are all Democrats. And
it looks like the Republicanswould prefer to have a 15, 0 court
(02:40):
of appeals. So can you Explainto folks just a bit that, you know,
aren't, you know, intimatelyfamiliar with our judicial system.
What's the role of the NorthCarolina Court of Appeals?
Sure. So in North Carolina,there are effectively three levels
of courts. First, you have thetrial courts in each county, in all
(03:05):
100 counties all around NorthCarolina, our district and superior
courts. And those are thecourts most people are familiar with.
Right. That's where you go ifyou have a traffic ticket or if you
have a court date and you havea single judge sitting out there,
maybe a jury. That's where wehave evidence and trials and the
things most people arefamiliar with. At the other end of
(03:28):
the spectrum is our NorthCarolina Supreme Court. That is the
highest court in our state.And so the North Carolina Court of
Appeals sits in the middle.And the North Carolina Court of Appeals
hears Appeals from all 100counties in North Carolina, all across
the state, in practicallyevery area of the law, both criminal
(03:51):
and civil. On the criminalside, we'll hear everything from
an appeal of a DUI, you know,traffic stops and DUIs, all the way
up to first degree murder,where life in prison is imposed.
On the civil side, we hearjust the whole gamut. Everything
(04:12):
from family law cases topersonal injury cases, cases involving
parental rights, casesinvolving environmental permits,
property cases, contractcases, tax workers, comp. Just. Just
the whole run of the mill. Soreally, if you have a legal issue
(04:34):
in North Carolina, one way oranother, our court has spoken on
it and issued a decisioninvolving that area of law. We don't
hear evidence. We simply lookto see if there was an error committed
by the trial court below. Sowe're looking for, for legal errors
(04:54):
and issuing opinions that helpguide the judges, the lawyers and
the litigants themselvesfigure out all these different areas
of law.
Yeah, I guess anotherimportant question is there are 15
judges on the court. I noticedthat seven of the 15 are from Campbell
Law School. So in that court stacking.
(05:18):
Well, you know, we're, youknow, we're, we're really proud of
Campbell Law. We always feltlike it gave us just like School
of Science and Math. It gaveus a really good background in practicing
law and particularlypracticing law in North Carolina
when we're dealing with thesestate specific issues. I always feel
(05:39):
like it gave us a really good,good grounding in that regard.
Yeah, my JD is from NorthCarolina Central, and it looks like
the only member of the courtis your colleague, Jefferson Griffin,
who is a Central graduate. Sowe're, we're underrepresented. It
looks like there's There arethree of you up for, for reelect
(06:00):
for reelection, John Arrowwoodand Allegra Campbell Collins. And
I think, correct me if I'mwrong, she is not not running for
re election. Is that right?
That's correct. Judge Collinsis not running for reelection. So
that will be an open seat onyour, on your ballot. It's in 2026.
But as you mentioned before,these are the, the last three seats
(06:27):
held by Democrats on the courtand they're all up in 2026.
In all of these seats they're,they're statewide. So this isn't
something you only have to beconcerned about if you live in a
particular area. This affectseverybody from Murphy to Maneu.
That's exactly right. These,these are statewide elections and
(06:47):
that's true of our Court ofAppeals and it's true of the SU Court
as well. So they areabsolutely critical elections. You
know, the only other statewiderace on the, on the ballot in 2026
will be this, this, thislittle Senate race we keep hearing
about.
Right? Yeah, that's going tobe interesting. And a lot of money
(07:07):
spent here in North Carolinaon that one, I bet. Let me, you know,
like you said, you know, wetalked about it's a, a 123 Republican
majority right now. So whydoes it matter? I mean if it goes
15 0, why would that make adifference? I mean didn't justice
is supposed to be blind, sowhy would it, does it matter trying
to hang on to three Democratic seats?
(07:30):
Well, I think a great exampleright now was in fact the litigation
that involved Judge JeffersonGriffin and Justice Allison Riggs.
And you know, we sit in threejudge panels. And so I, I was assigned
to the panel hearing that casewhen it came to my court. And you
(07:56):
know, and I wrote a dissent,meaning the other two judges who
happen to be Republicans wrotean opinion that would have potentially
changed the outcome of thatSupreme Court race. You know, where
remember There was a 734 votemargin of victory there and that
(08:19):
would have potentially thrownout the ballots of over 60,000 folks
here in North Carolina as wellas potentially throwing out the ballots
of our military members andother overseas voters and their adult
children that would have allbeen thrown out during the night
(08:40):
from in that race, which wouldhave had the potential to change
the race. I dissented. So wehad a 2 to 1 vote in that case and
I wrote a long dissent. Andthat dissent, while it didn't carry
the day in our courtultimately, in my view, helped provide
(09:00):
a roadmap for first, frankly,our state Supreme Court and Then
subsequently a federal judgeto really step in and say, listen,
we shouldn't be changing therules of an election after votes
have been cast. Right. Andwhile the election is ongoing or
over. And so I think that's acritical example of how having even
(09:25):
one dissenting voice at thecourt makes a, makes a huge, huge
difference. It makes a,provides, it provides balance. It
provides a differentperspective. And, you know, and we're,
we're committed to upholdingthe rule of law. We're committed
to standing up for the rightsof all North Carolinians. And so
(09:48):
I think it's, I think it'sabsolutely crucial that we maintain
democratic voices on our courts.
Yeah, I noticed in thatparticular case that was Jefferson
Griffin vs. North CarolinaState Board of Elections and Allison
Riggs came out on April 7th ofthis year. The, the majority opinion
was 36 pages and yourdescending opinion was 66 pages.
(10:12):
But there was one part inthere in particular that really caught
my attention. And here's whatyou wrote. You said the, the majority
makes much of the fact.Eligibility to vote is determined
as of election day. Despiteprofessing this basic tenant, the
majority changes the rules ofthe 2024 election and only for one
(10:32):
race months after electionDay, it does so even though there
is no actual showing orforecast that any challenged voter
was not registered orotherwise unqualified to vote. Worse
still, with no supportingauthority, the majority invents out
of whole cloth an illusory 15day, quote, cure, period. That is
(10:53):
no remedy at all. This istruly legislating from the bench.
And legislating from the benchis one of those terms. I mean, it
seems like, you know, when,when there's a Democrat in the White
House, we hear a lot aboutdeath, debt and deficit. And when
there are Democrats on thecourt, we hear a lot about legislating
from the bench. But why'd youput that line in there?
(11:17):
Because that's, in my view,that's exactly what it was. It was
by judicial fiat, a courtimposing new election rules that
were not promulgated bystatute. Right. They weren't passed
by the General Assembly. Theyweren't adopted by an executive agency
(11:42):
like a state, like the StateBoard of Elections through its rulemaking
process. These were, thesewere rules that were being imposed
by, by judges. And, and you'reright, you know, we're, we're, we're,
we're often accused of that.But I think it's, it's critical to,
(12:02):
to identify that when it'shappening, because, you know, our
job is to interpret and applythe law, you know, it's, it's not
to make the law. And so, andthat's what I tried to do in that
dissent, was to try and simplyinterpret and apply the law as it
(12:24):
stood and not create somethingjust out of, out of whole clothes.
Yeah, yeah, I remember. I'vebeen a member of the, the U.S. supreme
Court bar for about 37 yearsand did some appellate work there
with. Back when Ken Starr wasthe Solicitor General. But I remember
in when Chief Justice Roberts,during his confirmation hearing said,
(12:48):
you know, the judge, the, therole of an appellate judge is to
call balls and strikes. Itdoesn't seem like that's the case
anymore. And, and I waslooking at the numbers. Gallup, you
know, does a poll every yearwhere they look at confidence in
different institutions andconfidence in the courts. In 2002,
it was 50%. This year it's 27.So it's been cut almost in half in
(13:13):
a little over two decades. Sowhat do you attribute that to? And
how do we restore confidencein our judicial system?
Yeah, you know, you know,Hamilton wrote in the, in the Federalist
Papers. And, you know, andI'll, I'll paraphrase and don't worry,
I won't sing it, but, youknow, the, the, the courts are really
(13:36):
of the three branches.
Actually, Judge, if you couldsing it, that would be terrific.
That'll boost our ratings.
Yeah, come on, let's.
I don't know, it might bring aswift end to the podcast. I don't
know. No, if, you know,instead of the three branches of
government, you know, thejudiciary is the weakest branch.
(13:57):
You know, the executive hasthe power of the sword. You know,
the president has the army andthe law enforcement capability. The
legislature has the pursestrings. Right. They're the ones
that pass the budgets andappropriate funds. What the courts
have is the trust of thepeople. And, you know, that's our
(14:19):
only mechanism for reallyhaving any authority, for having,
having a mandate, and for, fortrusting that people will follow
our rulings as if they believein a true independent judiciary.
Because we are the directliaison between the people and the
(14:39):
other two branches ofgovernment. Right. That's where you
come to challenge statutes.That's where you come to defend yourself
against criminal chargesbrought by the state. That's where
people interact with the lawis through our courts. And so I think
what we've seen is a constantdrumbeat attempting to politicize
(15:05):
the courts to make thedecisions political. Here in North
Carolina, judicial races weremade, partisan races. So we run as
Democrats, we run asRepublicans. And so I think there's
just this increasing senseamongst folks that. That our courts
(15:30):
are more beholden to thepolitics than. Than. Than before.
You know, I think judges werealways viewed as being above politics,
irrespective of yourphilosophical leaning. But. But these
days, I think just thatinjection of. And constant drumbeat
of partisanship, you know, hasreally, I think, does threaten to.
(15:53):
To diminish public trust inthe judiciary. And I think it's incumbent
upon us as judges to work tomaintain and restore that. That public
trust. It's absolutelycritical that, you know, our courts
are there for the people andnot just for partisan interests.
(16:18):
So, you know, so it's mybelief, you know, yeah, we really
should stand for the rule oflaw and to uphold justice and equity
for everybody, for all NorthCarolinians, no matter who you are,
where you come from, or howmuch or little you have.
So.
So, Toby, one of the thingsthat Mo and I enjoy talking about
(16:40):
is kind of the way Democratshave done things in the past. Is
this a situation where maybewe should be partisan in the courts.
You know, the Republicans arenot going to be less partisan. That's
clear from the latest, youknow, Rick's decision at the appeals
level, at least. You know, I'mnot advocating that, you know, you
(17:04):
take cases and, and rule in myfavor because I'm in court all the
time. But is there a situationwhen we should be partisan? I'm putting
you on the spot, man.
No.
You are.
No. And that's good, because Ithink one of the places that we,
(17:28):
as certainly as Democraticjudicial candidates have to be braver,
we have to be bolder, andthat's in being willing to talk about
our values, which is. Which issomething I think, as Democrats,
we've been reticent to do. Asjudicial candidates, we want to run
(17:50):
on our experience, on ourcompetence, our ability to do the
job. The fact that, you know,we believe in a fair, impartial,
independent judiciary, which,by the way, is a Democratic value,
you know, that perhaps in someways, we do lose the electorate in
(18:19):
many instances. And so. Andwhen I say talk about our values,
I don't mean talk about howwe'd rule on any particular. Particular
case or rule we have anyparticular interests. But, you know,
that we do stand up for therule of law, that we do believe in
our fundamental constitutionalfreedoms and rights under our federal
(18:43):
and state constitution, andthat. And that we, as Democratic
judges are the ones standingup for those values. And so I think.
I think that is. There is anelement there where it's absolutely
critical that we, we are ableto express our values as Democrats
(19:03):
and Democratic judges for the,and to the point is if we, if we
do that and we express thosevalues, then we will be judges not
just for Democrats and notagainst Republicans, but for all
North Carolinians, becausethat at the end of the day is truly
(19:23):
what we stand for. You know,you know, when I, when I wrote that
dissent in, in the SupremeCourt election case, you know, I,
I didn't, I wasn't looking atthe voter registrations of, of, of
who the potential voters were,you know, and so we, I was just writing
(19:47):
to uphold what I thought wasright under the law and the facts
of the case.
Right, all right. Well, thatwas a very diplomatic and judicial
answer. I appreciate that. Toa pretty broad, broad faced question.
So let's, let's talk politicsa little bit here. Obviously, you
(20:08):
know, I'm a big fan of yours.We met when I was running for the
state Senate down in, at theRutherford County Democrats dinner
and went out afterwards andhad a bunch of laughs and a good
time and, and I've reallyenjoyed getting to know you and your
wife and. But why did youchoose being a judge instead of legislative
(20:29):
or executive branch?
Well, for me, it, I, it's,it's, it suits my skill set. You
know, people often say, youknow, why, what made you want to
become a judge? And for me itwas very specific. I wanted to be
a court of appeals judge.That's where I grew up as a lawyer.
(20:50):
I was a law clerk for severaljudges on our court of Appeals. As
a young lawyer, most of mypractice was in the North Carolina
Court of Appeals, handlingappeals of all kinds of, you know,
I, and, and I love the work.Our work is, is primarily research
(21:11):
and writing, driven andthat's, you know, and I love that.
I love using writing and to,to persuade. I love using, you know,
writing to advocate. And sofor me, yeah, that, that the judicial
direction was the one thatseemed to fit most nicely with my,
(21:35):
you know, with my particularset of skills.
I guess I'm curious after the,your dissent and the, the Supreme
Court case, our relations withJudge Griffin.
You know, we, I will say we,we've made, we've managed to maintain
(21:57):
cordial cordiality. We're, we,we're, you know, we're not, we're
not necessarily close, but youknow, we maintain a level of professionalism
right at the court. You know,I always say one thing about our
court that may be differentthan, than the legislature is we
actually have to get the workdone, you know, we have to decide
(22:19):
cases. We have to, even if wedisagree, we have to work together
to get the opinion out. Wedon't have the ability just to close
up shop and end the sessionand go away without issuing opinions.
It's absolutely critical thatwe do the work of the state. So that's
something we continue to do.
(22:42):
Back when I was doing somework at the US Supreme Court, the
clerk back then was a guynamed Bill Suiter, who was a retired
army two star. And itsurprised me because, you know, the
perception was that, you know,that the opposite ends of the spectrum
back in, in those days was youhad Scalia on one end and Ruth Bader
(23:03):
Ginsburg on the other. And Iremember General Suter telling me
that, you know, one of thethings that probably surprised the
public the most were how closeof friends they were, that ideologically
they were polar opposites, buttheir families, they enjoyed the
opera and they'd go out to,you know, dinner and to the opera.
(23:24):
And, you know, personally theywere great friends, even though when
they put the robes on, theywere typically, you know, diametrically
opposed. And I'm justwondering, is it that same kind of
relationship on the court of Appeals?
Yeah, you know, in large part,yeah. You know, we, we generally
(23:46):
are all, all get along prettywell. You know, it's, it's a lot
different at the court thesedays. You know, it used to be everybody
was in the courthouse and inchambers. Now I see a lot of my colleagues
kind of work more remotely.And so, so I, I miss those kind of
(24:07):
organic conversations whereyou can, you know, debate, offer
suggestions, offerimprovements, you know, collaborate
or, or, or disagree, you know,kind of in person and through those
organic, natural conversationsthat happen in the courthouse. But,
but, you know, these days ithappens a lot more over email. So,
(24:31):
you know, that's a, that'sdefinitely been a change in the last
couple of years.
Right. Well, you know, NorthCarolina truly is a purple state,
you know, over the last coupleof elections, and we voted Republican
on the presidential side andDemocratic on the gubernatorial side.
And, you know, it seems likewe truly are like a 50, 50 state.
(24:51):
So, you know, as an attorney,it, it's somewhat concerning to see
that, you know, there'sRepublicans fought really hard for
that one more, one more seat.I mean, I don't know what you can
do with a, you know, with a,was it a 6:1 majority? You can't
do with a 5, 2 majority on theSupreme Court or what you can do
(25:13):
with 15 judges instead of 12on the court of Appeals. But do you
see any path forward to makingthe judiciary less, less partisan?
I do. I do see a path and Ithink, you know, sort of begins in
(25:34):
2026. As you said, we are 123court and currently our state supreme
court is a 5 to 2 Republicanmajority court. So in 2026, on our
supreme Court, Justice AnitaEarls, a Democrat, is the only Supreme
Court justice up for election.And on our court, as you said, the
(25:58):
three Court of Appeal seats,including mine, are up all Democrats.
So I think the first thing wehave to do is hold each of those
seats in 2026 when re electionand hold that, that third seat on
our court. In 2028, there arethree seats that come up on our state
(26:18):
Supreme Court in five seatsthat are up on my court. And y' all
can do the math. You know, ifwe can pick up seats in 2028, that
will go a long way torestoring a more, more balance to
both courts. But it's criticalthen that we keep these seats in
(26:40):
2026 so that there are thosepickup opportunities in 2028 to bring
balance to the court. Andthrough that, I think hopefully help,
you know, at least kind ofhelp maybe help restore that public
trust and help, you know, helpkind of work to take some of that
(27:02):
partisanship out of the courts.
Yeah, I'd like to see that. Imean, obviously in the legislative
branch, you know, it'sexpected to be partisan, the executive
branch the same way. But, youknow, sure, it'll be nice to see
the public have confidencethat there's at least one branch
where, you know, justice isblind and it really is calling balls
(27:23):
and strikes and not, you know,not going into it trying to achieve
a particular outcome. So forfolks out here, you know, if you're,
you know, folks out in Claycounty and Graham county and up in
Mitchell county, what's yourplan on how you're going to get to
them and, and get them on, onyour side come election Day?
(27:44):
Yeah, well, I, you know, Ithink, number one, you know, this
is a statewide election and,and I plan on making it a statewide
election. And for me, onething I can do is, is show up. And
that is. So that's somethingthat I am committed to doing, is
coming out and meeting voterswhere they are in person. I'm going
(28:06):
to put a lot of miles on theold Jeep and, but, but I, but I love
it. And you know, hopefullythrough that, you know, I think if,
if folks get to see, you know,judges outside of their natural habitat
and See them as for who theyare and let them judge me, let them
(28:28):
get to know me. But, yeah,we're. We're. We're definitely focused
on making this a fullstatewide campaign. I think it's
absolutely crucial that we.That we try to get out to as many
counties and as manycommunities as we can from the, the.
From Cherokee, you know, outto the Outer Banks. I think it's
(28:51):
absolutely critical becausethe reality is we are a statewide
court. We decide cases from.From every community in the state,
and that doesn't matterwhether it's the big city of Charlotte
or Sparta. It's. It's, youknow, our decisions have to be able
(29:12):
to be applied in every one ofthose communities. We have to understand,
you know, the impact ourdecisions are having in communities
big and small, the impactthey're having on individuals and
their cases. So, you know, forme, that's one of the silver linings
(29:34):
of judicial elections is itdoes sort of force us to actually,
you know, get out of thecourthouse and actually, you know,
have to talk to the folks thatour decisions really do impact. You
know, and I. So I think thatmakes us. Makes us better judges
to understand the real worldimpacts of our decisions and understand
that we're not just decidingcases in a vacuum, that we have a.
(29:57):
We have a duty. We have a dutyto the people of North Carolina.
I'm curious, you know, the. Inthe federal system, judges or lifetime
appointments, and obviouslyhere in our state, it's for a term
of years. What's yourperception on which, you know, is.
Creates a. A better perceptionof impartial justice?
(30:23):
Yeah. You know, I think thereare. There are pros and cons to both.
I mean, I think you can. Youcan look at the, you know, the appointment
process and say, well, thoseare political employees, right? They're.
They're appointed becausethey're. They have some favorable
view of the. Of the, you know,the current administration or whatever.
(30:45):
And so, so you can even, youknow, I mean, we see it, right? We
see it on. At the federallevel and the US Supreme Court level
where there's, you know, wesee the political appointments and
the confirmation fights, like,you know, which are usually partisan.
You know, North Carolina likesto elect judges. It's in our state
(31:10):
constitution. And in a way, itmakes, you know, the judges answerable
to the people. And so, youknow, that's a much more kind of
close relationship, I guess,in that Hamiltonian view in North
Carolina of the people andtheir judges in the courts. And so,
(31:31):
you know, I think there's anelement to say people are electing
their judges. They're electingthe folks they trust to be their
judges. So I think there's agood argument to say that judicial
elections actually may be away of helping increase the public's
trust of the judiciary andmaybe create a more diverse bench
(31:54):
as well.
So, Toby, our judge. What,what can folks do? You know, we have
a nice audience of folks fromacross the United States as well
as in North Carolina. Well,how can they help you?
Well, number one, you can joinour campaign at judgetobyhampton.com
(32:16):
you can learn more about meand sign up for updates. Also, this
is a statewide campaign. It's,it's going to be hugely expensive.
You know, I, I often joke thatwe're running a, you know, senatorial
or gubernatorial campaign on acounty commission budget. But this
year these races are going tobe massively expensive. And so you
(32:39):
can contributeonline@judgetobyhampton.com or you
can go to ActBlue and find mypage there. You can search Hampson.
Amazingly, it comes right up.And then also it's actblue.com tobyhampton
personal for contributions.That would be honestly, that is the,
at this stage of the campaign,that's the most critical piece is
(33:01):
allowing us to have thefunding to onboard campaign staff
and to get that message outtruly statewide to the millions of
North Carolina voters thatwe're going to have to contact. Yeah.
Well, as you will hear from Moand me, getting out there is part
(33:23):
of the battle. I mean,spending time out with, not just
with active Democrats, but,you know, real voters out here. And
that takes money, folks. Soplease go to. It's Judge Toby Hansen
dot com.
That's right.
And it's H A M P S O N. Alittle bit of disclosure here. I'm
(33:44):
a supporter of Toby's and bigfan of his. And Mo, can we potentially
count you in as a supporter ofToby's as well?
Absolutely. Even though, youknow, I'm biased against Campbell
because I went to Central,I'll still do it.
All right.
Well, cool.
You've got at least two votesout here in western North Carolina.
Do you think you'll have aprimary, Toby?
(34:06):
I am not anticipating aprimary. No, I, my eyes are all straight
on the general.
Okay, good. And any Democratsthat are thinking about it for, well,
there is one empty seat. Iguess they could run for that.
That's right.
But don't even think about itbecause you'll get a call from either
Mo or me. And, and you're notgoing to like that. Ask Bill Balla,
former chair of the NC11Democrats. Stay out of that one,
(34:29):
Toby. But, so let's, you know,read a. The end of end stages here.
What we haven't talked aboutit lately, Mo, Bourbon. What are
you drinking these days, Mo?Same thing.
Yeah.
I don't know if you saw. Therewas a big article I think I've mentioned
before. I. I'd gotten to be afan of. Fan of Uncle Nearest.
(34:49):
Yeah.
Yeah. And there's stories inthe last couple of weeks where they're
in some serious financialtroubles in the New York Times.
Oh, no.
So I'm trying to do my part tohelp keep them afloat, so.
All right, Toby, do you have afavorite libation that you drink
in a safe environment?
You know, in. In the quietmoments? I do like to sip on a bourbon,
(35:15):
but normally you'll catch mewith. With an ipa. And you guys have
a lot of really good ones out.
Yes, that's it. That'll getyou some votes out here.
Absolutely.
That's definitely a positivewestern North Carolina answer.
So in. In. Nobody else islistening here. It's just the three
of us. So are there any judgesthat carry flasks that you've seen
(35:43):
or heard?
Well, that's. That's the thingabout a flask, David.
All right, all right, allright. You don't have to answer that.
You don't have to answer that.All right, Toby, well, this has been
terrific. Thank you so muchfor doing this. You're a great North
Carolinian American and Mo andI are with you 100%. Why don't we
(36:05):
plan to do something out inhere and get folks in a room to get
to know you better? Yeah, thatmakes sense. And you're welcome back
to MUCU anytime to give folksan update. We like active candidates
and folks like hearingrepeatedly, not just once. So you've
got an open invitation.Anything else, Moe, before we close
it out?
(36:26):
No. Hey, it's been great toget. Get back into this, so let's.
We'll do it again.
Yeah, yeah. We'll get a littlemore active folks and start posting
at least one a week from hereon out, and we'll go from there.
Judge, any final parting words?
Well, just again, thank youall for. For having me. This has
(36:46):
been a lot of fun. I'veenjoyed the conversation and thanks
for. Thanks for pushing me alittle bit out of my comfort zone
to do this. I think it's. It'sabsolutely critical that we get the
word out about these statewidejudicial races. They are absolutely
crucial, you know, for, for,for our democracy. And so I appreciate
(37:07):
the work y' all do to get theword out and, and, you know, and
the fight. So, so thanks.
And, and listen, folks, Imean, if you think judges are something
that don't matter as much, youknow, ask Supreme Court Justice Riggs
about that. And again, youknow, Toby's dissent, even though
he lost at that level, wasused again in the Supreme Court to
(37:31):
justify returning Judge Riggsto the North Carolina Supreme Court.
So again, Judge Hampson, wewish you all the best. Please be
careful out there. Work yourass off. And folks, Judge Toby T
O b y Hampson.H-A-M-P-S-O-N.com Do Mo and I a favor,
(37:53):
sneak over there, throw thejudge 25 bucks and then next time
50. And then just keepdoubling it every month until you
don't have anything leftbecause this is pretty important.
Thank you for tuning in toMuck you with Colonel Moe Davis and
me, David Wheeler. If you likewhat you hear, help us keep shining
light on the mutual muck. Headto americanmuckrakers.com to donate
(38:17):
and subscribe to our substackfor updates and exclusive content.
Until next time, stay loud,stay vigilant, and don't ever say
this in in the judge'scourtroom, but if you don't like
it, muck you.
By Colonel Mo Davis inAsheville and David Wheeler in Spruce
(38:38):
Pine, North Carolina. Thanksto our guest today, the honorable
Toby Hampson, judge on theNorth Carolina Court of Appeals.
Muck youk is produced byAmerican Muckrakers.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.