Rutherford County Debate Spotlights Incumbency — and Blurs Credit for Court Programs

A packed primary debate hosted by the Rutherford County Chamber of Commerce gave voters hours of unfiltered remarks from candidates for sheriff, district attorney, clerk of court, and district court judge — while also underscoring how incumbency, attribution, and accountability can blur on the campaign stage.

The nonpartisan forum on Jan. 14 was moderated by Chamber Executive Director Cindy Cobb, who opened the night by warning the audience that “we will not allow chaos to break out” and emphasizing strict rules on time, decorum, and applause. Throughout the evening, Cobb consistently introduced sitting officeholders by their official titles — “Sheriff,” “District Attorney,” and “Judge” — rather than identifying them as incumbents, a choice that stood out in a primary election meant to decide who ultimately holds those offices.

Sheriff’s race: experience vs. outcomes

In the three-way sheriff’s race, incumbent Aaron Ellenburg emphasized progress under his administration, particularly in drug enforcement. “We’ve actually hit the streets in the problem areas of the county, and that’s how we’ve been so successful in taking drugs off streets,” Ellenburg said.

Challenger Jamie Dunn countered by focusing on his personal résumé rather than current results. “That’s the biggest difference between me and anybody sitting up here,” Dunn said. “I have actual 24 years of experience on the road working the streets of Rutherford County. I’ve been in the trenches.”

Jason Wease declined to attack Ellenburg directly, but suggested systemic problems remain unresolved. “If you keep doing things the way you’ve always been doing, you’re going to continue to have the same problems that you’ve got right now,” Wease said.

All three agreed that fentanyl, addiction, and mental health strain resources for the sheriff's office, though none presented new funding sources, which are available via grants and taxpayer funds allocated by county commissioners through the budget.

DA race: shared role, different emphasis

District Attorney Ted Bell, the incumbent, described the emotional burden of the job. “You’re dealing with people in the worst time of their lives,” Bell said. “The best part of the job is when you see the relief in their eyes.”

Challenger David Norris, a former assistant district attorney, argued the office has failed to adequately explain its decisions to the public. “The DA needs to get out and educate people,” Norris said. “Not every four years. Every month.”

Both candidates accurately described the district attorney’s legal duty to represent the state and community — not individual victims — and to weigh evidence, sentencing law, and public safety when deciding whether to prosecute or reduce charges.

Judicial race: credit claimed, context missing

The sharpest need for fact-checking came during the district court judge debate between incumbent Robert Martelle and challenger Andrew LaBreche.

Martelle cited the creation of a “Safe Babies Court” as an example of innovation during his tenure. While Safe Babies Court Teams have operated locally since July 2025, the program itself is not a Rutherford County creation. It is a statewide initiative supported through North Carolina’s court system and national child welfare partners, implemented locally with judicial participation but not designed or originated by any single county judge. It is a three-year grant-funded program, according to state public records. 

Martelle’s role, based on the structure of the program, would have been to help implement or participate in the initiative locally — not to create it outright. 

LaBreche, constrained by judicial ethics rules like Martelle, focused instead on broader concerns about accountability, transparency, and the judiciary’s impact on families appearing before the court. LaBreche tried to discuss his chronological findings, which he has published. However, he was quickly interrupted by Cobb, who asked that he not discuss others beyond his opponent.

Long questions, limited answers 

Candidates across races repeatedly noted that questions were multi-part and expansive, often combining public safety, mental health, homelessness, staffing, and legal constraints into two-minute response windows. “That’s the largest question you’ve asked me tonight,” Wease said at one point. “If I hit on two or three points, I hope that will suffice.”

What's next

Cobb closed the evening by thanking candidates and noting that additional forums are planned ahead of the March 3, 2026, primary.

For voters, the takeaway was clear: incumbents leaned heavily on titles and accomplishments, challengers leaned on experience and critique, and several claims — particularly about who created what — deserve scrutiny beyond the stage.