Democrat James H. Faison III, NC District Court, District 6, Seat 2
Career: Serving as District Court Judge for over 25 years, presiding over several courts, including community recovery court. Since 1998, Faison has served as Pastor of Byrd’s Chapel Missionary Baptist Church in Rose Hill, NC.
Education: Faison graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from North Carolina Central University. He earned his Juris Doctor from North Carolina Central University School of Law.
Interview responses have been edited for brevity.
For those who have never met you and don't know what you do, please introduce yourself, tell us what you’re running for, and why you think you deserve the people’s vote.
First of all, thank you so much for this tremendous opportunity. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk to the voters and to the community and inform them of who I am and what I do.
My name is James Faison. I serve as one of nine District Court Judges, here in the Sixth Judicial District, which consists of New Hanover County and Pender County. I've served on the bench for 26 years.
I was appointed initially by Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. on July 21st of 2000. Those who have heard me tell this story before know why I emphasize July 21st because that's my birthday, and what an excellent birthday present to receive from the governor.
I've served since that time, and I have run unopposed in every election until this one.
As a District Court judge, my main responsibilities are to preside over criminal district court, civil district court, family court, community recovery court, and over the 26 years that I've served, I have presided over every district court that's been created by statute.
What do you think qualifies you to take this role beyond your law degree?
I would say first of all, at this point in my career, is the fact that I have served as a District Court judge for 26 years, and for that entire period of time, no one has filed against me, and that to me was an indication that the Bar trusted my judgments.
The community continued to vote for me to serve, And that having gained the trust of the community, having gained the respect and the trust of the Bar, is a huge indicator to me.
The other qualifications, again, that I've developed over the years is the skill and ability to listen, to listen carefully, to listen responsibly and actively, and to make people feel comfortable in the courtroom to the extent that they feel like they had their day in court.
So it's more than just sitting on the bench and nodding your head and announcing a ruling.
There's a lot of work that goes along behind the scenes that folks are not aware of, but it is a job that I chose to do, was asked to do, and what was appointed to do, and then voted by the people to do, and I am so proud and grateful to be able to do it, and I'm going to continue doing it over the next however long that the Creator God says I can, and however long the statute, the laws of North Carolina says.
When was the last time you had to make a difficult decision on a certain legal or moral issue? How did you handle it?
Yes, that's something that happens every day with me, and as a judge, most judges.
I do approach it with my moral compass because the moral compass does, for me, it just reinforces my commitment to do the next right thing, my commitment to uphold the oath that I swore to, and that is to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
It's with that directive and that conviction that I approach the case and resolve that conflict.
As I'm often asked that question, well, how can you serve as a pastor and as a judge? And my quick answer to that is that I found the marriage between the laws of man and the laws of God, because the laws of man are based on the laws of God, in terms of principles and foundational principles, so I don't see a conflict.
Actually, I see a marriage, a merger, and they complement each other.
What is your philosophy on sentencing, within the constraints set by structured sentencing?
My philosophy is that before issuing a sentence, I do my best to try and hear the facts in full on both sides of the case, both sides of the situation.
We have resources in place that allow us to look at the defender's background. Look at also the ability to comply with what the sentence conditions are about to impose, because most folks are placed on probation as opposed to a straight jail active sentence.
Then there are conditions of probation that we impose, and we want to try to make sure you don't set a person up for failure, but at the same time, you know, deliver the punishment that's sufficient to hold them accountable for their actions.
And then, depending on the situation, sometimes give them drug treatment or other types of treatment to help them adjust their behavior so they can, at the end of their sentence, be a much more productive person, a safer person, a productive member of society.
Judges determine how the law is applied, and not what the law should be. How will you balance between being an independent judge who rules on what the law is, and an elected official who has a responsibility to your voters?
Well, the good thing about serving as a judge is we do have discretion, and at the same time, we're charged with not conducting our jobs as judicial activists.
We do understand that it is the legislature's job to make the laws, and it's our job to interpret the laws and apply them. But that gray area may come up from time to time, where we have the discretion to do what we think is right and what's best under the circumstances.
So it's a case-by-case basis.
There is a difference between changing the law and/or exercising discretion in an area where the law may not actually cover.
In doing so, that's where we are entrusted with the voters or entrusted by the people, and also duty-bound under the code of ethics to do what is right and what's best for the people that are involved in that particular case, and also the impact of that particular ruling or decision on the community.
What is a bias/prejudice that you currently struggle with? How do you work to overcome that prejudice?
Well, we all have our personal biases, and I think a person would be disingenuous to say that we don't. But at the same time, the way I overcome that is through, first of all, again going back to my moral compass, is understanding that I cannot make decisions based upon my personal bias.
And also, sometimes it may lend the question of, well, why does that bias exist in the first place? And through experience, what I found is that many times biases are misinformed, and when they are informed, that's when they change.
That's what I've learned to do over the years: to take the time to learn the backstory; in other words, to judge without being judgmental.
So I try to do that every day, and also biblically speaking, my guide is influenced by, or rather, that decision is influenced by Micah 6:8 that says, "He has shown thee, O man, what does the Lord require of thee, but to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly before your God.”
And so that's my mantra. That's what I try to do every day.
What is a quality you have seen in a judge that you would seek not to emulate on the bench?
It would go to not being a good listener, and rushing to judgment, cutting people off from being able to express themselves.
But at the same time, you have to consider the time that a particular case may take, or the time that an individual may take, because it depends on the court.
In some courts, the docket is very large, and you don't have a lot of time to hear every detail about the case that a person may want to present. You have to be a good listener to pick out the most important facts, what we call the material facts, and then make a decision based on that.
Now there are other times when, for example, in family court where the docket is not as large, and there's more time you can allocate toward a particular case than you know you are able to listen to the individuals in more detail.
But I would say to be respectful to people and not cut folks off, but to be a good listener is what I would say.
What is the biggest mistake you have made in your career? How would you seek to avoid it on the bench?
I can say that probably my biggest mistake would be to maybe have made a decision in a case or made a ruling before having all the facts — or thinking that I had all the facts, but then to come to find out later on, that there was something else that maybe I needed to consider.
So, in doing so, we have provisions in our statutes that allow for courts to amend judgments. That allows for courts to not wait till it has to go to the court of appeals, but you can, for example, what's called Rule 60 motions or Rule 59, where a judgment can be reopened with certain specific findings that supports that, and then make the adjustment that way.
Thankfully, there haven't been a lot of those. But over 26 years, there have been times where I've had an opportunity to have committed an error, but thankfully been able to go back and maybe correct it.
So what I try to do to avoid that is to try to be as thoughtful as possible from the very beginning, in other words, front-load the case, front-load the ruling, and take my time to think about everything before I render a decision.
How will you handle conflicts of interest on the bench?
I've had that come up from time to time, particularly being a native of this area, and have had folks that I've attended school with or whatever.
What we have to do is, and what I've done is, you know, consider: is this a case that I can make a ruling on that is not affected by my knowledge of the person or relationship with the person?
If it's a close association, then that's an easy no-brainer: I don't hear the case.
To avoid the appearance of any impropriety or the appearance of any kind of wrongdoing in that case, then I would just recuse myself from it and have one of the other judges handle that particular case.
How do you define injustice? How will you deal with injustice when you confront it in your courtroom?
So, the way I define injustice is where personal biases may interfere with making a decision.
In other words, where a person is treated differently because of certain exterior factors, whether it's race, whether it's economics, or whether it's the way they appear in court that day. And again, not taking the time to consider as much as possible the backstory of their situation, then I think that is injustice.
Just making a knee-jerk reaction in a decision about an individual's life, that's injustice to me.
Justice is where you exercise a balanced approach to making a decision that could impact the lives of the people that come before me.
How do you ensure impartiality in your judicial decisions for people of all backgrounds in your courtroom?
Well, the way I ensure that, again, is by first of all recognizing what my role is.
You know, the scales of justice, the symbolism is that she's wearing blinders, and those blinders are there for a reason.
So again, being mindful of what my constitutional responsibilities are, being mindful of my moral approach, exercising integrity and fairness to the extent where I want the person to walk away from court feeling like they had their day in court.
Even though I may render a decision that they don't necessarily agree with, or may rule against what they proposed in that particular case, if they leave the courtroom feeling like they were heard, then in many cases I feel like I've done my job there as a judge because that's what we're charged to do.