Name: Christy Ann Hamilton Malott
Age: 46
Party affiliation: Democrat
Campaign website: www.christymalott.com
Occupation and employer: Attorney – employed by Durham County Attorney’s Office
1. What in your record as a public official or private citizen demonstrates your ability to be effective, fair, and impartial on the bench? What do you believe qualifies you to serve as a district court judge? Please include your experience relevant to civil and criminal law.
District court is the front line of the judicial system. It includes the courts most people encounter, and it handles a wide range of high-volume matters that directly affect daily life. Half of the district court courtrooms address civil matters involving children and families, but Durham has historically elected criminal law attorneys to the bench. While knowledge of criminal law is important, Durham currently needs more judges with civil law experience. More now than ever, Durham needs judges with experience serving immigrants, children, and families, and judges with fresh ideas to reduce secondary trauma that courts often cause to both litigants and court personnel.
I have twenty years of legal experience in areas that include child abuse/neglect, custody, divorce, equitable distribution, spousal and child support, domestic violence, juvenile, general civil matters, adoptions, and guardianships. To be effective in these areas of law, I have learned intersecting aspects of criminal law and immigration law. I have litigated hundreds of cases and have served in private practice, government and nonprofit work. I have extensive experience serving immigrant clients and applying the trauma-informed framework to the practice of law. I have presented and spoken on applying trauma-informed around the state of North Carolina.
I am an experienced leader (former Durham Bar president, Chair of Durham’s Community Child Protection Team/Child Fatality Prevention Team). I have identified systemic issues and developed solutions, such as JusticeMatters’ Pro Se Center and Family Law section to increase equal access to family court for immigrant families and others who cannot afford private counsel. I am certified by the National Association of Counsel for Children as a Child Welfare Law Specialist. My legal practice reflects my commitment to public service, my personal integrity, my discipline and drive for excellence, and a wide variety of experiences. Combined, these demonstrate the skills I will bring to the bench and my ability to be effective, fair, and impartial.
2. How would you define your judicial philosophy? How do you define yourself politically? How does that impact your judicial approach?
I believe judges are public servants whose role is to apply the law as written, fairly, equitably, and impartially. Impartiality does not require detachment from the realities people bring into the courtroom; it requires careful listening, open-minded consideration of the evidence, and thoughtful attention to the real-world effects of judicial decisions.
For court proceedings to be fair, litigants must understand what is happening and what is expected of them. That requires clear communication from the court and the effective use of accurate interpretation when needed. I will treat everyone with respect, communicate clearly, and work to ensure participation is meaningful. I will enforce orders and hold people accountable with appropriate compassion and understanding.
An independent judiciary is essential to public trust. Although I am a Democrat, political affiliation does not, and cannot, guide my judicial approach. Judges must not let political considerations influence their decisions, or it will further erode confidence in the judiciary. My philosophy is shaped by my legal training, professional experience, and understanding of the need to balance justice and mercy, as shown by my years of work ensuring that people, especially those unfamiliar with the legal system, can navigate court proceedings fairly.
3. What do you believe are the three most important qualities a judge must have to be an effective jurist?
The three most important qualities a judge must have to be an effective jurist are integrity, a balanced temperament, and practical experience relevant to the court’s work.
Integrity is essential because district court judges exercise significant discretion, often in fast-moving proceedings. Fair, unbiased decision-making is critical to ensuring the public can trust the outcomes of the court. Judges with integrity inspire confidence in the judicial system.
A balanced temperament is equally important. District court judges preside over emotionally charged matters involving crimes, family conflict, and child safety. Effective judges in this environment must listen carefully, manage high-conflict courtrooms, and make difficult decisions without being reactive or dismissive, particularly where litigants may be unrepresented or under significant stress.
Finally, relevant legal experience matters because district court requires practical application of the law. Judges must understand how legal decisions affect families and communities, and how to move a heavy docket efficiently while allowing people to be heard and preserving fairness. Child abuse/neglect and juvenile hearings are intense. Experience in these cases prepares a judge to patiently hear all evidence in each case while simultaneously working to reduce wait times for parties, attorneys, witnesses, other professionals and family members. Unlike criminal court, civil court judges must write lengthy orders that are often appealed; judges who have practiced civil law as attorneys are better equipped to write legally sound orders that are upheld on appeal.
4. The recently passed Iryna’s Law eliminates the option for judges to release people pretrial with only a written promise to appear in court and requires that they set secured bonds for defendants charged with violent offenses or with more than two prior convictions. Do you support these changes? Why or why not?
Iryna’s Law reflects a desire for the courts to address what our underfunded mental health system has struggled to manage. Judges must consider each case individually, apply the law as written (regardless of personal opinion), and use discretion when allowed and appropriate. Pretrial detention is not always good for individuals or the community as a whole. Those who are detained miss work and suffer the resulting consequences, are absent from families, and rarely improve their mental health while incarcerated. Additionally, the County is responsible for providing all physical and medical care for those who are detained, and those resources would be better used to provide additional community-based services and programs. Detention should be reserved for those who present a genuine risk to public safety, which should be based on an individual determination; that will guide my approach in applying the law.
5. Black North Carolinians are incarcerated at much higher rates than their white peers. What responsibility do judges have to address racial inequity in the court system?
Judges have a responsibility to recognize systemic inequities, including those rooted in race, and to apply the law fairly while considering both practical and unintended consequences of their orders. Through training with the Racial Equity Institute and years of experience addressing disparities in Durham’s juvenile and family courts, I have worked to understand my own biases and the impacts of systemic inequities. Judges can promote equity by encouraging diversion and community-based solutions when appropriate, and by ensuring that decisions account for the real-world impact on individuals and families. They should educate the public and provide generalized information to policymakers when appropriate so that laws and policies reflect the realities and consequences observed in court. I will continue to approach my work with this focus.
6. Do you support restorative justice practices and diversion programs? What kinds of cases do you believe should be exempted from diversion programs?
I have and do support restorative justice practices and diversion programs because they provide opportunities for accountability, healing, and long-term rehabilitation. I do not believe there is a specific category of cases that should be exempted from diversion programs. When defendants and victims are both willing to participate, restorative justice programs can lead to a negotiated resolution that acknowledges the humanity of everyone impacted by a crime and promotes long term healing. Programs like Durham County’s Resources for Youth Success and Empowerment (RYSE) strive to keep juveniles out of the formal court system by offering appropriate community services. Recovery courts are useful in addressing particularized needs when the court system becomes involved. While some situations may not be suitable for diversion, no case type should be categorically excluded if the parties are willing and the program can serve the interest of justice. As a judge, I will carefully weigh all evidence, arguments, and available community resources to determine the approach that best promotes fairness, safety, and long-term outcomes.
7. How should judges take immigration status into consideration, both in case resolutions and in courtroom proceedings?
Through my work at JusticeMatters, I learned the stories, struggles, and tremendous resilience of immigrant families. The court system can be intimidating and legal status can make immigrants particularly vulnerable. Judges should understand the impact of their orders on immigration status and recognize the unique challenges immigrants often face, both in and out of court. In each case, judges must be aware of what factors, including immigration status, should be considered under the relevant law. In all hearings, judges should provide interpreters in the requested language and dialect, explain court orders clearly, and connect parties with culturally and linguistically appropriate resources. Judges can and should strive to make the court system more accessible and trauma-informed. The particular issues facing immigrants should be considered as part of the overall trauma-informed analysis and included in relevant adjustments to courtroom practices.
8. In many cases, voters know very little about the judges they are electing. Tell us something about yourself that our readers may be surprised to learn.
My husband, Donnie, and I both grew up in Durham, and we attended Durham Public Schools from kindergarten through high school graduation. Donnie attended Merrick Moore, Bethesda, Lowes Grove, and Southern (‘96). I attended Hillandale, Bragtown, Chewning, and Riverside (‘97). Some of my best high school memories come from playing centerfield on the softball team that brought Riverside its first conference championship. Roll Pirates Roll!
9. Identify and explain one principled stand you would be willing to take if elected that you suspect might cost you some points with voters.
I believe that truancy laws should be enforced, with appropriate prosecutorial and judicial discretion. Education is the key to a successful future for all children, and children who cannot learn to read, write, and do basic math for financial purposes will face a lifetime of struggles. If barriers exist to getting a child to school, our community has many ways to address those barriers, and the family should be offered assistance. But if barriers are addressed, and a child is still not taken to school (student “skipping” is a different issue), someone must be held accountable. School administrators need the support of the court system. Children need the court system to ensure that their caregivers prioritize their education and that their teachers have an opportunity to identify any unmet needs or abuse/neglect that may otherwise go unnoticed.
10. Are there any issues this questionnaire has not addressed that you would like to address?
I am proud that Durham County District Court has pioneered programs addressing systemic inequities, and I see two key areas where it can improve further – areas where my experience is particularly relevant. First, court proceedings are often unnecessarily stressful for plaintiffs, defendants, victims, family members, and court personnel. The six trauma-informed principles, developed in the mental health arena, should guide courtroom practices. At JusticeMatters, I worked with a team to apply these principles to family law and immigration services. I would love to help Durham courts become more trauma-informed, and believe changes can be implemented at relatively low cost with significant benefits.
Second, district court must be more accessible to people who cannot afford to hire private counsel. Even with law school clinics, nonprofits like Legal Aid and JusticeMatters, and pro bono attorneys, many people still represent themselves in civil cases such as custody and divorce, where there is no right to a public defender. Judges can improve access by coordinating with pro bono providers, scheduling hearings to maximize participation, and ensuring regular access to interpreters who can translate court orders (provided in English) for those with limited English proficiency. Equal access to justice in civil cases is essential, and if elected, I will work to find practical ways to address these gaps.