The Deborah Ross Liability for NC Democrats

While the press is consumed with speculation about Donald Trump and the impact on US Senate races, including the presumed impact in North Carolina, they are choosing to ignore the problems US Senate candidate Deborah Ross poses for Hillary Clinton and other North Carolina Democrats.

Deborah Ross’ campaign website conveniently glazes over her lengthy background as a lawyer/lobbyist and chief decision-maker at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Simply put, nothing happened in North Carolina without her seal of approval.

Winning North Carolina requires a Republican candidate to win a majority of the white female vote and pull 18% of the Democratic vote. With Ross as the Democrats’ choice for senate, Sen. Richard Burr would over-preform with both groups if the resources were available to defend against attacks from the national ultra-liberal special interest groups weighing in on Ross’ behalf.

With just over 7 months before the November elections, there will be plenty of time to reveal Deborah Ross’ true background, but here are a few items of importance today:

  1. As Executive Director of North Carolina’s ACLU, Deborah Ross stated “Members of the armed forces aren’t a ‘protected class’ under Civil Rights legislation.”1 You read that correctly: Ross believes the men and women who are willing to put their life on the line to protect our country, our Constitution and our civil liberties should not be protected by those same rights.
  1. Siding with convicted criminals, Deborah Ross questioned the fairness of giving crime victims the opportunity to participate in the parole process, saying it could infringe on the rights of the defendant: “Deborah Ross, executive director of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said victim participation in the legal system raises serious questions of equal protection under the law.” 2
  1. Even more startling than Deborah Ross’ vote against a Sex Offenders registry are her attempts to downplay the seriousness of such crimes with revealing comments such as, “People checking offender lists might be surprised by what they find, some skeptics predict. They might discover people they know – not strangers who threaten their children.”3
  1. Once again, siding with the criminals, Deborah Ross was one of only five State House members to vote against the expansion of the state’s DNA registry for convicted felons4 — another inconvenient fact undermining safety of all North Carolinians, but not properly vetted in her primary.

The greatest obstacle facing Richard Burr is competing against the massive media expenditures from presidential special interest groups and ultra-liberal special interests willing to pay a high premium to seat Ross in the Senate.

If successful in breaking through the clutter and helping voters discover the real Deborah Ross, it is doubtful many national or state Democratic candidates will invite her to stand with them on the campaign trail.

While Senator Burr is positioned to win, his supporters cannot afford to take this race lightly. The National Democratic Senatorial Committee was right to have concerns about Deborah Ross and her liberal record. One media outlet even described Ross as the most liberal candidate to ever run in North Carolina.

With that said, the national Democrats have rolled in behind Ross, and already, it’s clear their narrative is Republicans (not Democrats) have a problem in 2016. After reviewing the reams of background on Deborah Ross, it is also clear which name on the ballot this November fails to fit the mainstream mold of North Carolina voters.

And that name is not Trump or Cruz.



  1. Philip Hervey, “Searching For Cold Beer, Marines Get Cold Shoulder,” Morning Star (Wilmington, NC), 8/31/96.
  2. Patrick Flanagan, “Victim’s Mother Adds Emotional Pull To Killer’s Parole Tug Of War,” The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC), 10/2/96.
  3. Foon Rhee and Kathleen McClain, “Senate Broadens Sex Offender List,” Charlotte Observer, 5/22/97.
  4. HB 79, Vote #1015: Passed 103-5, 7/17/03, Ross Voted No.