North Carolina Republicans might just get away with stealing an election
Well, it's probably happening.
Republicans in North Carolina may actually subvert the will of voters to put their candidate on the state Supreme Court, despite Democratic Justice Allison Riggs being the rightful winner.
On April 4, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Judge Jefferson Griffin, the Republican candidate for the North Carolina Supreme Court who lost to Riggs in the 2024 election. Now, the only unresolved election in the country could be determined by a Supreme Court with a Republican majority – the very one that Griffin is vying for a seat on.
The 2-1 decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals panel fell along party lines, as was expected. While we would all love to believe that the courts are nonpartisan and that judges will do what is morally right, it doesn't seem like these judges are able to separate themselves from the party that elected them.
'This is January 6 with a robe and suits,' Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said on a press call April 10. 'They're trying to deny the rights of voters in this country right now, and it's shameful.'
I agree with Martin. This is an egregious use of the courts for partisan gain. North Carolinians made their voices heard on Nov. 5. Two recounts have affirmed Riggs as the winner by 734 votes – a slim margin, sure, but a win is a win. Now, the outcome of this legal saga could have wide-ranging effects on future elections across the country.
The question is what will happen to more than 65,000 votes that Griffin is challenging.
On April 11, the state Supreme Court ruled that 60,000 of those votes couldn't be thrown out – a win for voting rights and for Riggs. On the other hand, anywhere from 2,000 to 7,000 overseas and military voters could have their votes thrown out if voters don't cure their ballots within 30 days.
Previously: Election is long over, but NC Republicans want to invalidate thousands of votes | Opinion
It's clear that these voters were being targeted because they are likely to have voted against Griffin. Black voters were twice as likely as white voters to have their ballots challenged. Voters ages 18-25 were the largest group to have their votes protested.
Ironically, military and overseas voters have also had their ballots challenged – even though Griffin previously voted this way as a member of the National Guard.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
The court's ruling on the 60,000 voters is the correct take. These voters have already proved that they are eligible to vote in North Carolina, thanks to the state's voter ID law. The discrepancies in their voter registration files were due to clerical errors.
This is not the fault of the voters, yet they were almost punished for it.
It would be one thing if Republicans had lobbed these challenges well before Election Day. Instead, they waited until they knew Griffin had lost to complain about these votes.
Opinion: Congratulations, Republicans! Your fear of pronouns is tanking the economy.
I can't even begin to fathom how this will affect future elections. Not only is this setting up the state Supreme Court for a 6-1 Republican majority, but it also tells North Carolinians that their votes don't matter. It erodes faith in the electoral system in a state that has already had its fair share of election drama, thanks to endless partisan gerrymandering.
'We know that the consequences of this race extend far beyond the borders of our state,' Anderson Clayton, the North Carolina Democratic Party chair, said during the press call. 'Today, it's a Supreme Court race in our state, but in 2026, it's a United States House of Representatives seat. It's a governor's seat. It's any race that Republicans lose on the margins.'
While I want to believe the Democrats have the power to make things right, I'm not hopeful that the will of the voters will prevail. Both the state and federal governments are currently friendly to Republicans. If Republicans get away with all of it, it will be a stain on American democracy that will challenge the legitimacy of our elections for generations to come.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: NC still has a November election going. GOP might steal it | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
20 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Trump pressed to take hard line with Iran after Israel strikes
A group of pro-Israel members of Congress is urging President Trump to ensure "zero enrichment, zero pathway to a nuclear weapon" in negotiations with Iran, Axios has learned. Why it matters: The lawmakers — including a Republican, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) — said Israel's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites and other military targets has created a "renewed sense of urgency" on the issue. "This decisive action comes after two months of unsuccessful diplomatic attempts and represents a critical chance to stop the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon," they wrote in a letter to Trump first obtained by Axios. The White House did not immediately respond to Axios' Saturday afternoon request for comment on the letter. Driving the news: The letter is led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a staunchly pro- Israel centrist Democrat, and signed by seven other House Democrats, in addition to Bacon. The nine lawmakers noted that the two-month deadline which Trump set in March for reaching a nuclear deal arrived on Thursday — the day Israel launched its strike. They urged him to add "crushing diplomatic pressure ... to Israel's military pressure" by working with European countries to impose "Snapback" sanctions on Iran for being out of compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. What they're saying: Trump told Axios' Barak Ravid on Friday that he believes Israel's strike improved the chance of reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. "I couldn't get them to a deal in 60 days. They were close, they should have done it. Maybe now it will happen," he said. But Iran's foreign minister said that nuclear talks planned for Sunday have been cancelled, and Trump said Saturday that the war between Israel and Iran "should end."
23 minutes ago
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans' stunning flip flops on ‘national emergencies'
In February, President Trump issued executive orders raising tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico. In April, he slapped a 50 percent tariff on countries that the U.S. has a trade deficit with and a minimum 10 percent tariff on all others. The administration claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1997 gives the president the authority to declare a national emergency and take immediate action to protect the country. Illicit trafficking in fentanyl along with threats to border security allegedly justified the tariffs imposed on China, Canada and Mexico. America's large trade deficit was the justification for the 'Liberation Day' tariffs imposed on countries throughout the world. Trump's actions marked the first time the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been used to increase tariffs. Last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court on International Trade (comprised of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees) declared that Trump had overstepped his authority. The tariffs, the judges noted, were not relevant to reducing fentanyl trafficking or illegal immigration. And since the U.S. has had a trade deficit for each of the last 47 years, it is difficult to argue that it constitutes a national emergency. A few days later, an appeals court allowed the administration to continue to collect tariffs while litigation moves through the courts. In the meantime, the silence from Republican members of Congress — the body which, according to Article I of the Constitution, alone has the authority to raise and spend revenue — is deafening. It is worth noting that before Jan. 20, 2025, many of congressional Republicans endorsed a proposal limiting the president's power to act unilaterally by declaring national emergencies. In 2019, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the 'Article One Act.' The bill would have terminated all national emergency declarations after 30 days unless both houses of Congress voted to extend them. Calling for 'real action, as opposed to symbolic show votes that don't address the root of the problem,' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) signed on as a cosponsor. Fifteen senators, including nine Republicans, signed a bipartisan letter urging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to have the full Senate consider the Article One Act. The aim of the legislation, the letter indicated, 'is simple but fundamental: Congress cannot continue to cede its powers to another branch, regardless of who is president, and which party holds a majority.' Members of Congress 'who are troubled by emergency declarations,' Lee emphasized, 'only have themselves to blame.' Nothing happened. In 2023, Lee reintroduced the Article One Act. 'Law-making by proclamation,' he asserted, 'runs directly counter to the vision of our Founders and undermines the safeguards protecting our freedom. It is high time that Congress reclaimed the legislative power and restored constitutional balance to our system.' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), as he endorsed the Article One Act in the House, reminded his colleagues that 'the presidency was never meant to have monarchical power over the American people.' The legislation did not get a floor vote in either chamber. Executive orders and national emergency declarations — used all too frequently by Obama, Trump and Biden to bypass Congress — pose a clear and present danger to the system of checks and balances that has served this country well for over 200 years. And the problem of executive overreach is getting worse. In the first 100 days of his second term, Trump has issued executive orders and declared national emergencies at a faster pace than any president in modern history. But Republicans in Congress no longer seem troubled by executive orders based on emergency declarations. In March, Lee introduced a bill that differed dramatically in substance and tone from the Article One Act. The 'Restraining Judicial Insurrectionists Act of 2025' mandated that a three-judge panel review all lower court injunctions against the president and grants of declaratory relief, followed by an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court. 'American government cannot function if the legitimate orders of our commander-in-chief can be overruled at the whim of a single district judge,' Lee declared. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refused to permit a floor vote to repeal Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs.' Every president, 'no matter the party,' Johnson opined, has 'a broad degree of latitude' over trade. The Senate rejected a similar measure with a 49-49 vote; neither Lee, Grassley nor any other Republican who signed onto the 2019 Article One Act letter supported the legislation. Justice Anthony Kennedy warned in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the case declaring the line-item veto to be unconstitutional, that the separation of powers is violated and liberty is threatened when spending is 'determined by the executive alone' and the president has the power 'to reward one group and punish another, help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, favor one State and ignore another.' Clearly, many congressional Republicans agree. But if they continue to choose partisan self-interest over principle, voters will have good reason to blame them — and the Trump administration — for the weakening of our democratic institutions. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.
