Inject Into My Veins: Female Republican Judges Level NC Paper Over Telling Judicial Race Omission

The establishment political media here in North Carolina are hopelessly and notoriously biased in a way that might even make the uber-leftist press corps in Washington, D.C., blush. This is just a documented fact, with plenty of receipts to go along with it, as I and many others have been reporting for decades.

For instance, see: The Politically Incestuous Relationship Between North Carolina Dems and the Local Media Continues and Usual Suspects Rush to NC Dem Senate Nominee's Rescue, and It's Time to Expose Them (Again) for some background.

With that in mind, we turn to the latest round, where the McClatchy-owned Charlotte Observer and their sister paper, the Raleigh News and Observer (to be called the "Observers" from here on out for the sake of brevity), collectively published their judicial endorsements on Thursday in the state Supreme Court race and the three NC Court of Appeals races ahead of the November elections.

Despite starting off the piece by noting they weren't crazy about judicial races in the Old North State being "partisan" - with party names attached to the candidates on the ballot - they nevertheless endorsed the Democrats in all four races. No real surprise there, of course, but it was when it came to the Seat 3 Court of Appeals race that the Observers really showed their true colors. 

Here's what they (originally) wrote:

A notable distinction: The winner fills the seat vacated by Democrat Allegra Collins, potentially leaving the court without a woman among its 15 justices. We think that's meaningful, and [District Court Judge Christine] Walczyk has been an active advocate for women in the judiciary and legal community.

We recommend Walczyk.

"...leaving the court without a woman among its 15 justices"? Um, no. The NC Court of Appeals actually has four female Republican judges, and they blasted off on both papers in a letter released on Thursday.

The most biting lines from Judges Donna Stroud, Valerie Zachary, April C. Wood, and Julee Flood?  Read on:

"The four Republican women serving alongside Judge Collins deserve to have their service and contributions accurately recognized.

[...]

An endorsement should not erase the service of four women simply because they belong to a different political party.  Recognizing women's contributions to the judiciary requires recognizing Republican women, too. Their experience, leadership, and public service are no less meaningful because of their party affiliation."

INBOX: Female judges on the NC Court of Appeals are pushing back on a claim made by the NC McClatchy owned papers' editorial board in its recent endorsement article. #ncpol https://t.co/nIxzXZsGyA

— A.P. Dillon (@APDillon_) October 15, 2026

I really appreciated that statement, specifically because it was clear they weren't using it to call on the Observer to validate their existence. They were calling on them to recognize and acknowledge it. A big difference, in my opinion. Besides, getting "validation" by the Observers is not really a noteworthy accomplishment.

So what did the Observers do in turn?  Add "Democrat" beside the word "woman," thereby further negating their original point about disliking partisanship in judicial races, and also confirming in the process that originally leaving out "Democrat" in the Seat 3 endorsement was purposeful on their part - because if there are already four Republican women judges on the NC Court of Appeals (which there are), the line about Walczyk being "an active advocate for women in the judiciary" wouldn't be necessary.

The winner fills the seat vacated by Democrat Allegra Collins, potentially leaving the court without a woman Democrat among its 15 justices. We think that's meaningful, and Walczyk has been an active advocate for women in the judiciary and legal community.

For grins and giggles, here's a before shot, and here's the notice of correction:

@APDillon_ Never change, Charlotte Observer! Never change. 😂 #ncpol https://t.co/YVLqSyMMYG

— Sister Toldjah 💙 (@sistertoldjah) October 15, 2026

The Observers, like the Democrat officials whom they support, have long been dismissive of female Republican leaders and activists and their contributions to public policy and the national discourse, something they made more than clear in this insane op-ed they did during the infamous 2016 "bathroom bill" debate, where they advised women opposed to naked men in women's locker rooms to get over their feelings of discomfort in the name of "equality" or something:

You've outdone yourself with this gem, Charlotte Observer. https://t.co/dNUJteCl2Z #ncpol #hb2 #WarOnWomen https://t.co/0UXcpT1uZ1

— Sister Toldjah 💙 (@sistertoldjah) May 15, 2016

Not long after that tweet went out, Rush Limbaugh was suddenly talking about the Charlotte Observer's editorial on his program. I have no proof he saw my tweet, but since I'm one of the few people in this state who have actively monitored the Charlotte Observer on social media over the years, I choose to think that maybe he or a producer did. 

Whatever the case may be, Limbaugh's amplification of the op-ed led to some pretty hilarious spintastic efforts from the Charlotte Observer's editorial team to act as if people had purposely misread them. LOL.

The Observers are who they are, and that is unlikely to ever change. But come on, CharObs, do you really have to make it this easy for us?

Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.