Research status
- Evidence confidence
- 74%
- Score coverage
- 35%
- Recommendation
- No endorsement
- Last reviewed
- 2026-07-24
Official ballot record · Published research
Sarah Stevens
Republican candidate for NC SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SEAT 01.
Former state representative Sarah Stevens practiced law for more than 30 years and held leadership roles on judiciary and elections committees.
Campaign finance
NCSBE reports $336,178.77 in election-cycle receipts, $108,418.2 in expenditures, and $257,501.63 cash on hand through 06/30/2026.
Open finance source ↗Campaign links
Funding composition
Where the money comes from
Named individual contributions$250,143.2 · 74.4%
Unitemized individual contributions$1,276 · 0.4%
Party committees$5,200 · 1.5%
Other political committees$79,553.57 · 23.7%
Loans and other receipts$6 · 0.0%
Material funding concerns
HUDSON FOR CONGRESS · $5,000
This is material institutional funding; its sponsor, purpose, and relationship to the candidate warrant scrutiny.
OLD NORTH STATE PAC · $5,000
This is material institutional funding; its sponsor, purpose, and relationship to the candidate warrant scrutiny.
View the complete official filing ↗
Personal donations are not attributed to a donor's employer. Independent expenditures are reported separately from money received by the campaign.
Evidence-gated scorecard
How this candidate measures up
Worker-policy alignment
No sufficiently specific, validated worker-policy position is published.
Evidence confidence: 0%Record reliability
A complete promise-versus-record comparison has not passed validation.
Evidence confidence: 0%Funding independence
Official filings show party and other political-committee receipts equal to approximately 25.2% of the displayed funding breakdown. This does not infer donor motive.
Evidence confidence: 90%Democracy and ethics
Stevens states that judges should apply laws as written; the published position does not identify specific worker or democracy safeguards. Rubric: Publishes a procedural textualist philosophy without a specific covered democracy or worker safeguard.
Evidence confidence: 65%Transparency
The reviewed profile publishes 3 source-linked evidence items and labels candidate statements separately from official records.
Evidence confidence: 74%insufficient evidence
Promises: Published candidate commitments are shown as statements.
Record: A complete office-appropriate comparison of official actions is not yet published.
The missing comparison is a risk and prevents unsupported conclusions.
0/10 answered
Questionnaire participation is not treated as positive or negative evidence during the launch period.
Developing campaign
Reported receipts exceed $100,000. Organization and competitiveness still require separate evidence.
Risks and uncertainty
What remains uncertain
Governing record not fully compared
An official governing or judicial record exists, but a complete issue-by-issue comparison is not yet available. This blocks endorsement unless other validated evidence is unusually strong.
Evidence record
What the sources establish
Campaign biography
Experience
The campaign says Stevens maintained a private law practice for more than 30 years and served as a state House leader and judiciary committee chair.
“maintained a private law practice for over 30 years ... Chair of a House Judiciary Committee”
Stated position
Judicial philosophy
Stevens says judges should apply law as written rather than create law from the bench.
“the law should be applied as written and judges shouldn't create laws from the bench”
Official NCSBE filing
Campaign finance
NCSBE reports $336,178.77 in election-cycle receipts, including $5,200 from party committees and $79,553.57 from other political committees, through June 30, 2026.
“Total Receipts $336,178.77; Total Expenditures $108,418.20; Cash on Hand $257,501.63.”