Name as it appears on the ballot: Sean A.B. Cole
Age: 53
Party affiliation: Democrat
Campaign website: https://seancoleforsuperiorcourt.com
Occupation & employer: Attorney/ small business owner at the Law Offices of Sean Cole
1) Please tell us what in your record as a public official or private citizen demonstrates your ability to be effective, fair, and impartial on the bench? Please be specific. What do you believe qualifies you to serve as a Superior Court Judge?
I’ve spent 27 years practicing in North Carolina and started trying cases four months after I passed the bar exam. I have tried cases across eastern North Carolina for both plaintiffs and defendants in civil trials. I’ve trained with some of the best lawyers and judges in the country and am constantly improving my skills and knowledge. I’ve taught over 50 continuing legal education classes which has required me to be continually learning and researching the law even in areas that I know well and practice in daily. I have the perspective of having “skin in the game” because many of my cases are handled on a contingency fee, so if we lose, I don’t get paid. That lets me stand in my clients’ shoes and know the uncertainty that can come with jury trials.
I’m trained as a Superior Court mediator, and further trained in collaborative law. For several years I worked with Project Together, providing free representation to abused women seeking restraining orders from the courts. I have worked with the Wake County Bar Awards fundraising for over a decade, which has raised over a million dollars for Legal Aid. I have also worked on various boards both in the legal community and our broader community as a service.
2) How do you define yourself politically? How does that impact your judicial approach?
I’d say I am in the middle of the left wing, if that makes sense. By that I mean that I am not all the way to the left, but I am certainly left of what was formerly known as “center.” I think the old definitions are of little use with Donald Trump and the MAGA movement on the scene. I am certainly not a socialist, but I believe the role of government can be expanded for the benefit of everyone in the country. I believe that when everyone here (including immigrants) has more opportunity, and by extension more success, then everyone benefits, from individuals to the entire nation
3) What do you believe are the three most important qualities a judge must have to be an effective jurist? Which judges, past or present, do you most admire? Why?
1) A judge must be knowledgeable about the law, but also willing to be educated by the attorneys and parties before the Court. No one knows everything, so perhaps it’s better to say a judge show know as much as they can as a starting point, but also must be prepared to admit when they don’t know something. (2) A judge must have a temperament that allows them to listen to both sides of an argument, and to determine with impartiality how the law should be applied to a specific matter before the Court. (3) Above all, a judge must have a heart and mind for service. The role of the judiciary is to serve and protect the citizens of the community, both by carefully applying the law, and by acting out the judicial role of being a check and balance against both the executive and legislative branches of government. But a focus on serving the community and fulfilling the role of the judiciary as envisioned in the Federal and state constitutions is by far the most important quality for a judge, and for any other elected official.
I admire Earl Warren, who was chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1953 to 1969. He helped shepherd in the modern era of jurisprudence, encouraging and shaping decisions including Brown v. Board of Education, Virginia v. Loving, and Miranda v. Arizona, to name a few. This era corresponded with the various Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act to try and move the U.S. forward and away from the restrictions and injustices of discrimination and inequality. One of my other judicial heroes was Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who championed the same rights that Justice Warren did, but also championed them for women, and tried to advance the concept of gender equality (not just between men and women, but also recognizing the advent of the LGBTQ+ community and the need to provide political, social, and economic protection and opportunity for those persons as well.) Finally, I am a huge fan of Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, who argued the previously mentioned Brown v. Board of Education before the Supreme Court, and served as Solicitor General of the United States before being appointed to the Court. He was a dreamer and simultaneously a pragmatist, famously saying that he always tried to do “the best I could with what I had.” He tried to find the best outcomes he could to promote freedom and equality whenever possible, but he did so from the perspective of someone who had seen and directly confronted the Jim Crow laws and the institutional racism that pervaded America. Sadly, much of those problems remain, but that’s why the judiciary must always be ready to fight against them to protect our communities and the state and federal Constitutions. If elected, I too will always try to do the best I can with what I have.
4) In a sentence, how would you define your judicial philosophy?
I want to be as fair as possible in applying the law to serve the community, while recognizing that the law must evolve along with the community and society it serves.
5) Do you favor or oppose public financing of judicial elections? What changes to North Carolina’s system of judicial elections do you believe are necessary, if any?
If you look at this election cycle, you’ll see the issue. It’s likely that over two billion dollars will be spent on the Presidential race alone. Between us, my opponents and I will likely spend over one hundred thousand dollars for a local superior court judge race. That’s insane. That money should be going to western NC and the rest of Appalachia devasted by hurricane Helene. It should be going to school teachers and first responders. Taxpayers should be allowed to add an additional amount if they so choose, up to a certain amount, to provide funding for these races. Part of the general fund from the state and the federal governments should be set aside for political events, including public debates and increased online events. I think the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision should be overturned to prohibit the establishment of super-PACs using untraceable “dark money.” I think those changes are needed for ALL elections, and I think all elections should be exclusively publicly funded. I don’t know if the judicial elections should be otherwise altered in terms of whether they should be replaced by appointments. Either way has its challenges, pros and cons. For one thing, appointed judges don’t have the reverse ability to appoint either the executive or legislative branches, which means that with judicial appointments, there will always be an inherent partisan factor at play as to which judges are chosen. At the same time, non-partisan judicial elections are simply not workable in the Internet age: voting records and personal political beliefs are too easy to learn with the amount of information available. But the judicial candidates should be required to appear in public forums for debates and interaction just as is expected of the other offices.
6) In many cases, voters know very little about the judges they are electing. Tell us something about yourself that our readers may be surprised to learn.
In addition to growing up in Scouting and reaching an Eagle Scout rank, I spent my summers working at Holston Presbytery Camp in Banner Elk within Avery County, NC. I spent two summers as a counselor, one summer as the rustic program director and one summer as the overall program director. That was a true dream job. As much as I have enjoyed the law, I had to struggle to decide if I would pursue the law or small group camping as a profession. I remain a huge fan of our state and National Parks and hope to visit all of them some day.
7) If you are in a competitive race, what sets you apart from the other candidate(s)?
Many of our judges come from backgrounds of primarily criminal law. I have handled a small amount of criminal cases over the years, but I have far more civil law experience than other judicial candidates. Additionally, I’ve been a registered Democrat since I was 20 years old when I realized that people, liberty, and equality mattered more to me than corporations, isolationism, and fear. I have not changed those beliefs over time. I believe the candidates owe it to the voters, especially in judicial elections, to provide background as to who they are, and how strongly they hold to their convictions and what those beliefs might be. I believe that such transparency is hard to accomplish as an “independent” candidate. Voters can see that my core beliefs come from a place of integrity and conviction, and not from a position of changing with the prevailing winds.
8) Do you support mandatory minimum sentences for certain, such as low-level drug offenses? Why or why not?
I know this was question from the original survey and was not included on this one, but I wanted to answer it anyway, as I had already thought about it in some detail and I think it’s critically important. I apologize if it’s are not useful, but I hope it is:
No. Mandatory minimums are inherently racist and were created both to maintain systemic white privilege and to deny opportunity to and increase the incarceration of minority communities, especially the African-American population. Additionally, mandatory minimums remove discretion from trial judges and dimmish the right of defendants to a fair trial, since if a defendant is convicted of an offense punishable by a mandatory minimum the skill and advocacy of their attorney no longer matters. Mandatory minimums are largely a result of legislative laziness in an effort to appear “tough on crime” when in fact simply ignoring the subtleties and specific facts of specific cases.
