Judicial Watch: NC High Court Strikes Down Election Law
Fair election advocates praised the NC Supreme Court’s decision to strike down legislative changes to North Carolina’s elections oversight apparatus.
A narrowly divided N.C. Supreme Court late last week struck down the General Assembly’s attempt to change the membership of the State Board of Elections. The changes, initiated immediately after the governor’s office changed parties in the 2016 election, would have drastically reduced the power of the governor to appoint and remove board members and staff.
The Court said that the law, which would also have produced county boards of elections that were evenly divided between the two major parties, interfered with the governor’s inherent executive branch authority to ensure that state election laws are being properly carried out. Operations of the state and county election boards have been slowed as Gov. Roy Cooper declined to make new appointments under what he has asserted was an unconstitutional legislative scheme.
Writing for the Court majority, Justice Sam Ervin IV said, “The General Assembly cannot…structure an executive branch commission in such a manner that the Governor is unable, within a reasonable period of time, to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ because he or she is required to appoint half of the commission members from a list of nominees consisting of individuals who are, in all likelihood, not supportive of, if not openly opposed to, his or her policy preferences while having limited supervisory control over the agency and circumscribed removal authority over commission members.”
Democracy NC Executive Director Tomas Lopez said, “Today’s ruling rejects a law that amounted to an unlawful power grab by the North Carolina General Assembly. The public deserves a political system that respects its will. We welcome this decision and are hopeful that it will dissuade our leaders from future attempts to entrench their power.”
NCLCV and other voting-rights advocates have consistently criticized the now-voided law as likely to result in reduced opportunities to vote. Critics have observed that the evenly-split boards are likely to deadlock on matters such as the number and distribution of early-voting sites. In the case of such deadlocks, the minimum state requirements become the default. That could mean as few as a single early voting site for an entire county.
In contrast, easier voting opportunities increase participation. Increased participation by potential voters increases accountability of elected officials to the public. Conservation advocates maintain that accountability to the voting public makes for better policy decisions on clean water and air.
