The distinct flavor of each local prosecutor's office persists in North Carolina despite unusually strong efforts to centralize and unify the prosecution function across the entire State. The 44 offices share a common legal framework, including structured sentencing rules that channel the available punishments in predictable directions. Almost all their operating funds derive from the State rather than from the local level of government. The ties that bind the offices together do not, however, create a single organizational identity. Each office pursues a unique mix of criminal charges, responsive to the priorities of local voters. Local offices also differ from one another in the sentencing results they obtain. Thus, the North Carolina experience demonstrates the relatively weak influence of substantive criminal law, sentencing law, and other formal legal structures in the face of demographic differences, local political constraints, office size, and organizational culture. In a democratic society, residents expect prosecutors to make choices consistent with their own values and priorities. Yet in North Carolina, voters also recognize that the State is not culturally homogeneous: Charlotte is not like Shallotte. Localism is a natural consequence of tight popular control over criminal justice in a pluralistic democracy. (Published Abstract)