Legislative Watch: Flagrant Ballot Manipulations Get Worse
On less than 24 hours’ notice, the North Carolina General Assembly went back into special session last week. The legislature acted swiftly to undermine progress toward transparent elections with an informed public.
Phil Berger and Tim Moore decided to call their colleagues into a surprise extra session, and as usual, instructed them how to vote. The items for rubber-stamping this round were two late changes to the rules for conducting the general election, with the start of early voting now just 80 days away and the deadline to finalize the ballot only a little over a week away.
House Bill 3 removed from public view and discussion any process of preparing explanatory captions for the six proposed state constitutional amendments that will appear on the fall ballot. It was revealed by the Berger/Moore team, passed by both chambers, and sent to the governor all on the same day (Tuesday, July 24).
Senate Bill 3 changed the rules for ballot designation of statewide judicial candidates—a month after candidate filing closed. The same legislative majority which decided earlier this year to make all judicial races partisan, and to eliminate primaries so that all filed candidates compete in a November free-for-all, voted to approve one change designed to strip a single candidate for Supreme Court of his party registration designation.
Analysts noted previously that the party-designation and no-primary changes had been designed to reward the majority party with fewer candidates for a given judicial seat. In previous years, the state Republican Party has effectively exercised endorsements of a single candidate in these races, while the state Democratic Party has not. This time, however, two candidates filed as Republicans for the lone Supreme Court seat on the ballot, and only one as a Democrat. If SB 3 becomes law, one of the two Republicans will be re-designated (against his wishes) as unaffiliated, increasing the remaining Republican’s likely share of her party members’ votes, and with that, the party’s chance of keeping that seat on the court.
Critics of these changes note that their purpose is flagrantly intended to benefit the party in power, at the cost of confusing—or even actively misleading—voters.
Other observers were even more explicit in their criticism. NCLCV spokesperson Dustin Ingalls noted, “If passed, two of the constitutional amendments they put on the ballot last month would give legislators the power to appoint judges and members of the Environmental Management Commission. Judges and EMC commissioners protect our right to clean air and water. Legislators are hoping to stack our government with polluters’ puppets.” By eliminating the process for providing a short, accurate description of the effect of those amendments, Ingalls said, the current legislative leaders are trying to trick voters into removing the current checks on their abuse of power. Editorial commenters agreed.
On Friday, Gov. Cooper vetoed both bills. Of SB 3, he said, “Changing the rules for candidates after the filing has closed is unlawful and wrong, especially when the motive is to rig a contest after it is already underway.”
On HB 3, he said, “These proposed constitutional amendments would dramatically weaken our system of checks and balances. The proposed amendments also use misleading and deceptive terms to describe them on the ballot. This bill compounds those problems by stopping additional information that may more accurately describe the proposed amendments on the ballot. Voters should not be further misled about the sweeping changes the General Assembly wants to put in the constitution.”
NCLCV is welcoming comments to legislators opposing these bills, encouraging them to uphold the vetoes. Your voice can be heard on this power grab by clicking here.
