GOP takes over N.C. elections board, boosting chances of reversing high court race
Republicans took over North Carolina's elections board Thursday, boosting their chances of reversing the results of a November election and expanding their majority on the state Supreme Court.
The swing state has been riven by political and legal fights since last fall, when Republicans won the state's presidential electoral votes but lost the races for governor, attorney general and a seat on the state's high court.
Just after the election, Republicans who control the state legislature passed a law shifting the power to appoint elections board members from the Democratic governor to the Republican state auditor.
Gov. Josh Stein sued over the change, and a panel of judges last week blocked the measure. But on Wednesday, an appeals court lifted the lower court's decision while it considers the case. That gave Auditor Dave Boliek the chance to make appointments, and he placed three Republicans on the five-member board on Thursday. He is slated to appoint Democrats to the two remaining seats later.
'We need full confidence in our elections, and I'd like to thank these individuals for their willingness to serve,' Boliek said in a statement.
Anderson Clayton, the chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party, sent a letter to Boliek calling the changes to how the board is appointed 'an abuse of power and a disservice to the people of North Carolina.'
The fight over the board comes amid a broader battle over the makeup of the state Supreme Court, where Republicans have a 5-2 majority.
In November, Justice Allison Riggs (D) held onto her seat by a 734-vote margin. Her challenger, state appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin (R), sued, arguing some votes should be thrown out. This month, the state Supreme Court gave Griffin a partial victory and raised the prospect that thousands of votes would be thrown out. (Riggs did not participate in the decision because the case affects her.)
The case is ongoing, with state and federal courts reviewing whether votes should be discounted, and if so, how many. The elections board's role in that litigation is important. Attorneys for the board recently told a judge they interpreted the state Supreme Court's ruling to affect about 1,700 voters and planned to contact them to determine which votes should be counted.
Griffin argues that thousands more ballots are affected by the ruling. Now that the board has a Republican majority, it could adopt a view more like Griffin's to try to convince the courts that more ballots should be reviewed.
The more ballots that are put into doubt, the better Griffin's chance is of overcoming Riggs's narrow victory.
Most of the ballots in dispute were cast by overseas and military voters who were never asked to provide copies of their IDs. If the state Supreme Court order holds, those voters will have 30 days to submit copies of their IDs, and those who don't will have their votes discounted.
The legal fight over the state Supreme Court seat could continue for months — as could the dispute over which party controls the elections board.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
DOGE gets failing grade
1: The DOGE numbers don't add up. Calculating how much DOGE has saved is difficult, but it's not at all hard to see that it didn't deliver what was promised. After Musk revised down his own early projection of DOGE savings from $2 trillion to $1 trillion, the department's website now estimates it has found more than $170 billion in taxpayer savings — Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But even that figure should be taken with a grain of salt, given that past examinations of DOGE's ' Advertisement DOGE moved to correct the error, as well as change the website to make such errors harder to find. But a Advertisement And though it may seem counterintuitive, cutting jobs doesn't actually translate to savings if it results in less productivity — if fewer IRS workers means less tax revenue is collected, for instance. An And even some Republican lawmakers have expressed unease with backing many DOGE-recommended cuts in a $9.4 billion legislative 'rescissions' package to claw back previously approved funding. House lawmakers 2: DOGE has roiled the job market. According to the latest jobs numbers, DOGE cuts contributed to a 50 percent spike in layoffs in May over the same period last year, Exacerbating the damage the firings alone have created is the chaotic way in which they were implemented. Federal agencies like the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Food and Drug Administration, National Weather Service, and the IRS are among those rushing to rehire terminated employees. That's because many of the estimated 135,000 DOGE-axed positions are for critical functions, like approving drugs and forecasting weather disasters. The layoffs' often-disorganized manner has confused dismissed workers and overtaxed remaining ones, many of whom have been asked to work overtime, volunteer to take on additional roles, or be pushed into new positions, Advertisement One former FDA worker That's not to mention the blow to communities in states where the largest percentages of federal workers are located, as well as government contractors that face secondhand profit and job losses due to the cuts. Outside of the greater Washington, D.C. region, which includes Virginia and Maryland, the hardest-hit states when it comes to canceled government contracts based on anti-DEI initiatives alone include Texas, California, North Carolina, Georgia, and Colorado — affecting politically red communities as well as blue. DOGE's harms know no partisanship. 3: The incalculable costs. On Monday a 'This was a breach of law and of trust,' wrote Judge Denise Cote in issuing the temporary injunction. 'Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs.' Whether some or all of DOGE's efforts to gain access to Americans' most sensitive information through agency databases will be declared unlawful is still uncertain. Challenges are still being litigated, and in a lawsuit involving DOGE access to Social Security data, the Advertisement According to Some DOGE staff have been granted temporary 'edit-access' to data, which means the information can be altered or deleted entirely within the federal system. That says nothing of the broader global impact, particularly through the dismantling of agencies like the United States Agency for International Development, which once provided critical life-saving humanitarian aid across the world. DOGE has The government claims that shuttering the agency saved Americans nearly $60 billion, or less than 1 percent of the federal budget. According to Advertisement Musk is already back to playing with his cars and rocket ships as the federal government picks up the pieces from his DOGE tantrum. But the global ripple effect is a reminder that some of the damage can't be undone. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits The high court unanimously said courts can't use a higher standard to block suits for damages for some disability discrimination claims and not others. But they declined to set the standard. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News WASHINGTON – Disability rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court on June 12 made it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools for damages. Not only did all the justices agree that some courts were using too tough a standard to block lawsuits like one brought by a Minnesota teenager with a rare form of epilepsy, but they also rejected her school's argument that the real issue is the standard is too lax for other types of disability discrimination claims. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line,' Shira Wakschlag, an attorney with The Arc of the United States, said in a statement after the decision. But the court didn't settle the larger issue of what the standard should be in all cases. The justices only said there shouldn't be different standards for discrimination claims involving educational instruction. And two of the court's six conservatives – Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh – said the school raised 'serious arguments' that courts are getting that standard wrong. In a concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that he hopes 'lower courts will carefully consider whether the existing standards comport with the Constitution and the underlying statutory text.' Two of the court's three liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – pushed back, saying the school's argument that a person with a disability must prove there was an intent to discriminate is clearly wrong. 'The statutes' text and history, as well as this Court's precedent, foreclose any such purpose requirement,' Sotomayor wrote in a concurring opinion. More: In unanimous decision, Supreme Court makes it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools How the case got to the Supreme Court The issue in the Minnesota case was whether the school failed to accommodate the special needs of Ava Tharpe, whose rare form of epilepsy makes it difficult to attend school in the morning. Federal courts agreed with the family that the school hadn't done enough and needed to provide evening instruction. But the courts said the Tharpes couldn't use the Americans with Disabilities Act to try to get the school to pay for outside teachers and other expenses incurred before they won their case. And they said the Tharpes couldn't use the Rehabilitation Act to seek a court order binding the school to teach Ava after regular school hours. Judges on the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits to go forward involving educational services for children with disabilities. That's a tougher standard than the 'deliberate indifference' rule often used when weighing other types of disability discrimination claims. The school argued that 'deliberate indifference' is too lax. Their lawyers said the plain text of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination. What the Supreme Court decided The Supreme Court said they couldn't consider that argument because they'd only been asked to decide whether the lower courts were correct to apply a 'uniquely stringent' standard for cases like Ava's – not to decide what the standard should be in all cases. 'We will not entertain the (school) District's invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. Thomas said he agreed that it wouldn't have been right for the court to take on the larger issue with its significant ramifications for disability rights. But in his concurring opinion that Kavanaugh joined, Thomas said he'd be willing to do so in an 'appropriate case.' 'Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard under two widely utilized federal statutes is an issue of national importance,' he wrote, 'and the (school) District has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect.'
an hour ago
Manhunt continues for Minnesota shooting suspect Vance Boelter
Around 24 hours after police say a gunman killed a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, plus wounded another lawmaker and his wife, suspect Vance Boelter remains on the run, authorities have said. The shootings began around 2 a.m. Saturday, when Minnesota State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were both shot multiple times at their home in Champlin, Minnesota, authorities said. Soon after, State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were shot and killed at their home in Brooklyn Park. Police encountered the gunman leaving Hortman's house at around 3:35 a.m., the officers heading there to check on the lawmaker after responding to the earlier shooting at Hoffman's home. The suspect exchanged gunfire with police and was able to escape and flee on foot, authorities said. The FBI is "using every available resource to locate Vance Boelter," FBI Minneapolis Special Agent in Charge Alvin M. Winston Sr. said in a statement. The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to Boelter's arrest. The 57-year-old suspect is alleged to have gained access to the victim's homes while posing as a police officer. Police believe that when the shooter opened fire, he was wearing a latex mask that looked realistic, sources said. Boelter -- a husband and father, according to an online biography -- has touted an extensive background in security and military training, according to an ABC News review of his online presence and professional history. Boelter helped lead the private security firm Praetorian Guard Security Services, which is based in the Twin Cities area, according to the company website. Dozens of Minnesota Democrats were on a target list written by the gunman, according to law enforcement sources. Those on the list included Gov. Tim Walz, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, U.S. Sen. Tina Smith and state Attorney General Keith Ellison, according to law enforcement sources familiar with the matter. Police said the list -- which was retrieved from the suspect's vehicle, which looked like a police vehicle and had police lights -- also named Hortman and Hoffman. Both victims are Democrats and Hortman was formerly the Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives. The shooter's list of potential targets also included the names of abortion providers and pro-choice activists, several sources told ABC News. Many of the Democratic lawmakers on the list have been outspoken about pro-choice policy positions, two sources said.
