Over the years, Earls has made it clear that he believes judges come to the bench with their own political leanings and biases, and that they have a duty to act when documented disparities exist. In a state where judges are required to declare their party affiliation, Earls has defended attending partisan campaign events, saying that voters should judge his actions in court and whether he is able to resolve cases in a nonpartisan, fair, and impartial manner.

The court's partisan makeup led to its dissent in two high-profile cases involving redistricting and voter ID laws. In 2023, both cases had recently been decided by a Democratic-majority state Supreme Court; when the court's composition changed, the new Republican majority decided to rehear the cases. Earls argued that rehearing the cases under those circumstances threatened impartiality and judicial independence.

She resisted requests from legislators to recuse herself in the state's protracted Leandro case because, years earlier, as a lawyer, she had worked on related litigation. Earls has previously identified the state General Assembly as the greatest threat to judicial independence, citing, for example, its power to impeach judges who rule against its agenda or to transfer appointment powers to elected legislators.

Defending the rights enshrined in the state constitution, including access to health care, voting, and public education, is a central tenet of Earls's campaign. In his public remarks and rulings, he has indicated that he believes constitutional guarantees should place real limits on government and that the courts must provide effective remedies when those rights are violated. He has applied this principle most firmly in matters of education, voting rights, and equal protection.

She has emphasized that the North Carolina Constitution contains rights not recognized by the U.S. Constitution and has ruled that those rights must have effective legal remedies. In 2022, she ruled against extreme partisan manipulation of electoral districts, saying it violates the Free Elections Clause of the state constitution, and she dissented in 2025 when the court upheld aspects of a lower court's decision that deemed a group of voters ineligible in a race for another Supreme Court seat. Earls issued a lengthy dissenting opinion in the Leandro case and said in a subsequent interview that if education is a constitutional right, it is the court's responsibility to enforce it if legislators fail to allocate the funds. In an action her opponent criticized as an inappropriate defense of a cause, Earls has also publicly criticized the enforcement of federal immigration laws in North Carolina, saying such actions violated immigrants' constitutional rights.

Earls has argued that public trust in the courts is strengthened through transparency and openly addressing problems, as she did in 2023 when she commented on the lack of diversity and racial and gender bias in the judiciary. She has also stated in interviews that the public should have access to the information necessary to judge judicial impartiality for themselves, such as whether judges always vote along party lines or how they vote on matters that affect people's lives.

Regarding more traditional measures of judicial ethics, Earls has not always heeded requests to recuse himself when there might be concerns about a conflict of interest. He declined to recuse himself in the Leandro case, stating that his prior involvement had been limited and that he did not consider his disqualification necessary.

Earls has generally taken a pro-access stance toward public records and government information, as in his dissenting vote in a case where he argued that the state's open records law should prevent a wholly state-owned corporation from concealing records related to public matters. But he acknowledges that not everything should be public. In a case concerning whether UNC was required to release the disciplinary records of students who had been held responsible for violating the university's sexual assault policy, he dissented with a counter-argument: that federal student privacy laws superseded the state's public records law.

Stevens, a longtime state legislator, believes that judicial impartiality means that judges must stay within the bounds of their role, apply the law as written, and not create laws from the bench, although she did vote in favor of legislation in 2011 that openly encouraged the judiciary to alter constitutional precedents.

While campaigning for the court, Stevens declined to answer questions on issues she believes might come before the court, saying she would recuse herself if there were any appearance of impropriety. But she also said she was willing to rule on laws she may have helped draft while serving in the state House of Representatives, suggesting she would not automatically recuse herself. As a legislator, Stevens supported efforts to reorganize the state's judicial districts and restore partisan judicial elections.

Stevens' campaign takes a narrower interpretation of the relationship between legislators and judges, emphasizing that judges should not "make laws from the bench." If elected, she says she will apply the "principles of preserving liberty" in the state constitution to every case. While Earls has emphasized the need for courts to create remedies for violations of constitutional rights, Stevens has spoken more about identifying and enforcing the rights explicitly stated in the document.

In the Legislature, she has shown support for the rights of parents, victims of crime, and gun owners, and has supported stricter voter ID laws and abortion requirements. In several instances, she has supported the use of formal constitutional amendments to define or expand rights, submitting the matter first to the General Assembly and then to the voters, rather than relying on judicial interpretation.

Stevens has largely framed the discussion of transparency and ethics around the issues of judicial restraint, adherence to the written law, and recusal when conflicts arise. She said in an interview that she would step aside if there was “even the appearance” of impropriety, but also clarified that she would not automatically recuse herself if laws she helped pass as a legislator came before the court.

While a legislator, Stevens sponsored legislation to create a review process for certain disciplinary decisions against attorneys, preserving the confidentiality of the process. She also received a warning letter after accepting two campaign contributions to her judicial case from registered lobbyists—contributions that were illegal under state law because she was still a sitting legislator. Stevens returned the contributions, and the State Board of Elections determined they were not intentional violations. She and other members of the Republican leadership also faced criticism in 2025 for hastily passing a bill to limit the governor's power to fill prosecutorial vacancies.

As a legislator, Stevens sponsored stronger whistleblower protections, which would help public employees expose misconduct. However, she also supported bills to add greater confidentiality to the process related to minor autopsy records and the state bar's grievance process.