Two run to oust Judge Wynn

The race for the N.C. Court of Appeals seat held by James A. "Jim" Wynn Jr. pits two political newcomers against a longtime incumbent who is the senior associate judge on the bench.

Both challengers, Dean R. Poirier and Jewel Ann Farlow, don't appear concerned about their lack of judicial experience. They have resorted to attacks against Wynn, sparking debate in the often understated judicial elections. During recent interviews, they accused Wynn of being a judicial activist who doesn't always follow the law when writing his opinions.

They both think they can do a better job than Wynn. Poirier and Farlow criticized a few of Wynn's written opinions and claimed that Wynn lacks restraint when he speaks in public.

Wynn, who said he had written more than 2,000 opinions, dismissed the criticism. He has not been subject to any disciplinary action by the Judicial Standards Commission, which considers complaints against state judges.

"I will not engage in that sort of dialogue," Wynn said in response to his challengers. "My record speaks for itself."

Wynn, chairman of the judicial division of the American Bar Association, has bipartisan supporters, including three former chief justices of North Carolina.

The Republican Party has endorsed both Poirier and Farlow in the nonpartisan race.

Farlow said she is qualified to serve on the court. She said working in her law practice has prepared her.

"I have a broad range of experience on the civil and criminal side," Farlow said. "If you're a sole practitioner, you work, and you work a lot. I work long hours, and it's not a walk in the park. You can't just glance at a contract and say it's fine."

Poirier also thinks he is capable of handling the job. He worked four years in a private law practice and says his experience as an appeals referee for the state's Employment Security Commission helps give him a foundation for the appeals court. Appeals referees preside over hearings for employment insurance claims that have been appealed. They also hear evidence and testimony and make legal conclusions.

"It's helped me in dealing with a decision in a courtroom type setting," said Poirier, who has taught law part time at Mount Olive College and other colleges.

Poirier said he believes in judicial restraint, but some of his comments suggest otherwise.

Poirier made clear his personal opinions about controversial cases in a survey by the N.C. Family Policy Council, a nonprofit group that researches public policy issues affecting families.

He said he disagreed with landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which recognizes the right to abortion. He likened his judicial philosophy to Associate Justice Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2002, a U.S. Supreme Court decision allowed judges and judicial candidates to speak freely about controversial issues. But jurists have said it is still inappropriate to express a personal opinion on issues and cases that could come before them in a courtroom.

Wynn did not respond to the council's survey questions, saying ethics rules prohibit him from answering questions about pending cases or cases that address state law.

"I take that prohibition seriously and believe it equally applicable and important to issues that may arise in the future," Wynn said in a letter to the council. "I emphasize my only agenda on the Court is to discharge my duty to uphold our Constitution and our laws, rather than to attempt to satisfy the popular or political climate at the moment."