John S. Arrowood
Democrat | North Carolina
Candidate Profile
Proven Activist
BIOGRAPHY
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
ENDORSEMENTS
LIBERAL (11)
North Carolina AFL-CIO
People's Alliance PAC
Sierra Club North Carolina
North Carolina NOW PAC National Organization for Women
Equality North Carolina PAC
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (0)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (1)
Tricia Cotham (2008)
LIBERAL
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (49)
Charles T. Dudly Thomas (2026)
LGBTQ Victory Fund (2025)
State Democratic Party Organizations (2025)
Black Political Caucus of Charlotte Mecklenburg (2020)
LGBTQ Democrats of North Carolina (2020)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (6)
Equality North Carolina (2014)
Daniel Clodfelter (2008)
Elaine Marshall (2008)
Josh Stein (2008)
Keith Karlsson (2008)
OTHER INFORMATION
Judge Arrowood was inducted into the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute's 2024 LGBTQ+ Political Hall of Fame, and during his acceptance speech stated that he recognized the "privilege" of being a "cis white man" in America
Judge Arrowood spoke at the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association’s 2019 Lavender Law Conference and was recognized for his LGBTQ+ political and legal leadership, including service with Equality NC PAC, LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, and One Victory.
In Higgins v. Mendoza (2025), authored by Judge Arrowood, the Court of Appeals considered whether a state trooper could be sued after driving 113 mph in a 55-mph zone during a pursuit and crashing, killing his student passenger. The court allowed the lawsuit to continue, finding enough evidence that the trooper may have acted with gross negligence. Arrowood pointed to the extreme speed, the dangerous curve, and violations of patrol safety rules. The ruling meant a jury, rather than the judge, would decide whether the trooper’s conduct was reckless enough to make him personally responsible for the death.
In Fifth Avenue United Methodist Church v. North Carolina Conference (2024), Judge Arrowood partly dissented in a dispute over whether a church could leave the United Methodist Church and keep its property. The majority allowed most of the church’s claims to continue. Arrowood disagreed, saying courts should not get involved in church matters that require judging religious rules or decisions. He would have dismissed most of the claims because doing so could interfere with the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. His opinion emphasized that courts should use neutral property and contract rules without becoming involved in internal church disputes.
In State v. Campbell (2021), authored by Judge Arrowood, the Court of Appeals considered whether a court in Burke County had the authority to revoke a man’s probation from a separate case in Catawba County. The court vacated the prison sentence, finding that Burke County did not have authority to revoke the Catawba County probation because the man lived in Catawba County and had not violated probation in Burke County. Arrowood relied on the state’s probation law to limit the court’s power.
In Nation Ford Baptist Church v. Davis (2021), Judge Arrowood concurred in a case involving a church’s dispute with its former pastor over his employment. The court allowed the pastor’s claim for unpaid compensation to continue but recognized that the First Amendment limits courts from interfering in church decisions. Arrowood agreed that courts can resolve ordinary legal claims, such as whether a church owes someone money, but should not decide questions about church leadership or religious matters.
In State v. Ellis (2019), authored by Judge Arrowood, the Court of Appeals considered whether police violated a man’s Fourth Amendment rights by walking around his home after he did not answer the door and looking into a locked crawl space. The court reversed his convictions, finding that police had illegally searched the private area around his home without a warrant. Arrowood held that officers may knock on a front door but cannot walk around private property looking for evidence after getting no response.
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion.)
Did not answer
Does the federal Constitution support the right to physician assisted suicide? Please explain in light of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).
Did not answer
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Did not answer
How do you view the judiciary’s role in matters of abortion regulation following Dobbs?
Did not answer
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Do you believe religious liberty is at risk in the United States. If so, what is the judiciary's proper role in addressing this issue?
Did not answer
Does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment require government to be strictly secular or does it allow for the nation's religious heritage?
Did not answer
Was Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held tha the state may not show religious hostility when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against a business owner.)
Did not answer
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What is your understanding of parental rights under the Constitution regarding the upbringing of children, particularly regarding choices about education and sexual identity?
Did not answer
Is gender identity a protected class under the Constitution? Please explain the constitutional basis for your view.
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Describe your judicial philosophy.
Did not answer
Do you believe judges should primarily apply the law according to its original public meaning, or do you believe the law evolves over time to reflect contemporary values?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses create a right for same-sex couples to marry.)
Did not answer
A. How should a judge approach a case where the constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face? B. Conversely, how should a judge proceed when the text is ambiguous or silent on a disputed issue?
Did not answer
What is your view of judicial restraint versus judicial activism? How do you define each?
Did not answer
What is the proper role of a judge?
Did not answer
When applying or interpreting the text of a statute or constitutional provision, is it ever proper for a judge to consider present day public opinion or consequences?
Did not answer
If precedent departs from the Constitution’s text or original meaning, should a judge follow it or correct the error? Please explain.
Did not answer
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
The burden of proof in a criminal case is generally that the state must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Some say the reason the burden of proof is so high is because we greatly value ensuring that the innocent are not unjustly imprisoned. Please comment on this topic.
Did not answer
When reviewing wrongful conviction claims, what role, if any, should judges play in determining remedies?
Did not answer
2ND AMENDMENT
What is your understanding of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms?
Did not answer
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
Did not answer
