NC Supreme Court Chief Justice


iCaucus_logo.jpg Justice_Martin_Ephoto.JPG

Justice Mark Martin

NC Supreme Court Chief Justice

Judicial CQQ Score:  75%

Other candidates didn't respond to invitation to participate



Mark Martin is the Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. With over twenty years of judicial service, Justice Martin is the only active member of the North Carolina state judiciary with experience on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Superior Court.

Prior to his judicial service, Martin served as legal counsel to Governor James G. Martin (no relation), practiced law at the McNair Law Firm in Raleigh, and clerked for United States District Judge Clyde H. Hamilton. Martin has served in a number of leadership roles within the North Carolina Bar Association, including as its Vice-President. He has taught law courses at the University of North Carolina, Duke University, and North Carolina Central University. Martin graduated summa cum laude from Western Carolina University. He received his Juris Doctor, with honors, from the University of North Carolina School of Law. He later earned a Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Judicial Process from the University of Virginia.

Mark is married to Kym Martin. Five bright kids call him dad.

To Listen To His Interview please click HERE


Showing 19 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2014-02-25 21:52:30 -0500
    I have listened to the interview. In all honesty. I got extremely bored within the first 25 minutes. It was all I could do to listen to the end. I fully support his position on the Constitution however, Congress has proved they are bent in dismanteling it. I would have like for him to say (other than Constitution this and that)…immigration is a non-issue. Why? We have laws in this Country on immigration and those laws need to be enforced. Period!!! I wanted him to say through out the interview….State Soverignity. Period!!! I felt he was too wordy. And if he wants to win, he should attend townhall meeting.
  • commented 2014-01-19 18:16:06 -0500
    I don’t much like his resume as he is an incumbant and far too much of an insider. Incumbants like him have already exercised considerable power and thus the sad state of NC is at least partly his doing.
  • commented 2014-01-13 14:51:21 -0500
    Please resend link to webpage for voting. I didn’t save the email sent on the 10th.
    Thank you.
  • commented 2014-01-13 13:06:37 -0500
    Because the caucus/vote for Justice Mark Martin took place between Thanksgiving and Christmas ( a very busy time for all), iCaucus is extending the caucus/vote period from Monday, January 13th, 2014 to Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 to assure great statewide participation in this Citizen Led Job Interview. Please participate. Encourage your friends. Remember, iCaucus gives We The People the tools to vet candidates and hold them accountable. Let’s take full advantage. Listen to the interview and please vote. Thank you. Jane Bilello, iCaucus NC State Director
  • commented 2013-12-30 11:53:41 -0500
    Yes, they (all 4) voted to uphold criminal convictions (of non-violent crimes) by ignoring the Constitution of the United States. They voted for the ends justifying the means. This is extremely dangerous because taking away the Constitution from a criminal also takes it away from you and me. If the 4th and 6th Amendments can be weakened, so can the 1st and 2nd, or some other part of the Constitution you care about. If judges can ignore one part of the Constitution, then they can ignore any part of the Constitution. Thank you, Mr. Osborne, for making my point. Anyone can defend the Constitution when it is easy…we need judges who will defend it when it is hard.
  • commented 2013-12-29 16:42:18 -0500
    My name is David Osborne. I served as campaign manager for Justice Paul Newby in 2012 and I am familiar with both the cases referenced by Mr. Malt. In both cases Mr. Malt discusses, Justice Martin voted the same way as Justice Newby. In both cases the four Justices in the majority voted to uphold criminal convictions. In both cases the dissenting Justices would have thrown out the criminal convictions.
  • commented 2013-12-17 17:39:24 -0500
    I listened to the interview and I believe Justice Mark Marten is an excellent choice.
  • commented 2013-12-16 22:07:01 -0500
    I listened to the interview.
  • commented 2013-12-16 19:01:25 -0500
    NOTE: We would like to remind all members and affiliate group members that you can choose to endorse or not to endorse at all. If any candidate in any race does not meet the expectations of the citizens for that office, you can choose not to endorse. That is your right in any and all cases
  • commented 2013-12-16 18:32:02 -0500
    All thought Justice Martin scored 75 I find him to be weaker on the Constitution then I would prefer. But better then most progressive judges. I don’t know that we will have a better choice so as in many cases we choose from what we have but not necessarily from what we want. Perhaps a better candidiate will register by the end of February or we can work to improve his Constitutional knowledge.
  • commented 2013-12-12 14:18:06 -0500
    Fo those who have contacted iCaucus asking about how to vote. The voting for all endorsements will not be available until AFTER the conference period is complete, in order for full information to be brought forth prior to voting. You will be emailed the information to participate in the vote. Thank you all for your participation in the Citizen-Led process.
  • commented 2013-12-09 19:45:30 -0500
    Thank you Robert for posting these rulings so we can see his judicial record on Constitutional issues. Enlightening.
  • commented 2013-12-09 15:53:59 -0500
    The Case Against Justice Mark Martin

    Justice Martin has, on at least two occasions, legislated from the bench by concurring with NC Supreme Court decisions that are clearly unconstitutional. Summaries are provided below for your review, however, I encourage readers to spend more time researching these (and other) cases to arrive at their own conclusions.

    State v. Heiden (Fourth Amendment Issue)
    Justice Martin joined the majority opinion in significantly weakening the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches & seizures. This 2012 decision allows the police to violate your Fourth Amendment rights as long as they reasonably believe that you broke the law, even if you didn’t. Ignorance of the law is now a defense available to the police, but not to the average citizen. This decision has essentially created two classes of citizens in North Carolina, with unequal protection under the law. Rather than being held to a higher standard, law enforcement is now held to a lower standard than the common citizen.

    From the Majority Opinion:
    “Indeed, because we are particularly concerned for maintaining safe roadways, we do not want to discourage our police officers from conducting stops for perceived traffic violations.”
    Re-read the above statement. This is a crystal clear case of legislating from the bench.
    An officer’s mistake in law cannot be the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a crime.

    From the Dissenting Opinion:
    “The flaws in the majority’s opinion are perhaps most apparent in its single statement that ‘police officers should be entitled to interpret our motor vehicle laws reasonably when conducting routine traffic stops’. Separation of powers doctrine dictates otherwise: It is the legislature’s job to write the law and the judiciary’s job to interpret the law. The job of the police is to enforce the law at it has been written by the legislature and interpreted by the courts. Proper enforcement of the law requires accurate knowledge of the law; as the 11th Circuit cogently noted in United States v. Chanthasouxat, to decide otherwise is to endorse ‘the fundamental unfairness of holding citizens to the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse while allowing those entrusted to enforce the law to be ignorant of it.’”

    State v. Ortiz-Zape (Sixth Amendment Issue)
    Justice Martin joined the majority opinion in a case involving the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The Confrontation Clause is commonly known as the right to confront your accuser in court, and the exclusion of hearsay (i.e. “Johnny told me he saw Billy commit the crime.”). The majority opinion essentially said that the Confrontation Clause does not apply when to expert witness testimony relating to scientific testing. So, “I reviewed Johnny’s test results that say Billy committed the crime,” is now somehow alright according to the majority opinion.

    From the Majority Opinion:
    “The admission of an independent expert opinion based on the expert’s own scientific analysis is not the type of evil the Confrontation Clause was designed to prevent.”
    If scientific analysis is the only evidence that is relevant to the case (i.e. without it there is no evidence to convict), then how can this be viewed differently than the “evil” of hearsay eyewitness testimony?

    From the Dissenting Opinion:
    “Because the expert here (Agent Ray) simply viewed and agreed with the test results of another (Agent Mills), while she performed no testing and was not present for those tests, I must conclude her testimony violates the Confrontation Clause.”

    The majority opinion flies in the face of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Crawford v. Washington (2004) which upheld and affirmed the intent of the Sixth Amendment. The Court said, “Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because the defendant is obviously guilty.”

    This case was decided 9-0, with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion.

    Based on these two cases alone (and I have not reviewed any other cases where Justice Martin presided), I cannot conclude that he is a strict follower of the letter and intent of the United States Constitution. His actions speak louder than his words. I would urge my fellow iCaucus participants to vote against the endorsement of Mark Martin for Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court.
  • commented 2013-12-09 13:43:19 -0500
    I support Justice Mark Martin. We absolutely must elect conservative, principled judges.
  • commented 2013-12-09 13:15:56 -0500
    Justice Martin should be evaluated by his judicial record, not by his answers to questions. It is very easy to answer the icaucus questions to score well.
  • commented 2013-12-06 20:21:01 -0500
    Ginny. Agreed.
  • commented 2013-12-06 19:30:38 -0500
    While I may lament the yield to the Supremacy Clause and lack of fierce defence of states rights [ “I swore on the Bible to respect the opinion of the higher courts”] I believe Justice Martin does too as evidenced by his comments regarding federal intrusion and being “micro-managed” with 1.6 gallon toilets for example. Yet, he is being true to his oath and philosophy of Judicial Restraint: A narrow focus and not legislating from the bench. His “If they [judges] want to legislate, they should run for the Legislator.” confirms that belief and received a thumbs up from me. So did his position on International Law and Treaties. Another noteworthy comment was “We have far too much law.Period.” and that messages a belief in liberty and that power should be exercised as little as possible.
  • commented 2013-12-06 17:46:59 -0500
    I have listed to the interview
  • commented 2013-12-06 15:53:11 -0500
    Not happy with some of his responses.