Latest news with #StateSupremeCourt
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In the face of election denial in North Carolina, the judiciary upholds democracy
State Supreme Court Justice takes the oath of office in the old North Carolina House chamber on May 13, 2025. (Photo: Brandon Kingdollar/NC Newsline) It took six months, but the race for the North Carolina Supreme Court is finally over. The rules of the game held – just as they did following the 2020 election – and the winner is now in office. That's a win for democracy. And we owe that win in large part to an exceptionally strong ruling from Trump-appointed judge Richard E. Myers II, chief judge of the Eastern District of North Carolina. While other branches might be absent (Congress), or ambivalent on whether or not it has to follow the Constitution (Executive), the federal judiciary continues to hold the line. North Carolina is one of seven states that has partisan elections for its judges. In the November 2024 election for one of North Carolina's Supreme Court seats, Democrat Allison Riggs defeated Republican Jefferson Griffin by 734 votes. Out of 5,540,090 votes. Griffin challenged the results in court, as is his right. Included in Griffin's challenges were attempts to retroactively challenge the state's election laws, and then use the new understanding of the law to throw out 60,000 presumptively-valid votes. All based in election denial conspiracies. Such an effort violates two important principles of how our elections are run: 1) You can't change the rules of the game after the game, and 2) You can't punish voters for following the rules as they were understood at the time. These principles are what kept Al Gore from invalidating 25,000 likely-Republican votes in Florida in the 2000 presidential election, and they're what allow for finality in election results. The North Carolina Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court shocked the election community by partially indulging Griffin's after-the-fact challenges. They showed they were willing to set a dangerous precedent of legitimizing false claims of voter fraud, especially in close margin races. If the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision had held, and if it had gained popularity in other state courts, then we would have been in a world of trouble for 2026. Elections would drag on for months. For example, if I, in Arizona, narrowly lost an election, but then challenged the legality of mail balloting, then that legal theory would have to be fully litigated before calling an end to the election. Despite the fact that I could have challenged the legality of mail voting before the election. Imagine if the election in dispute had been a seat in Congress. Or if the partisan balance of Congress had only been divided by one vote. Would we have been waiting until May to seat the Speaker of the House? Maybe then it would've gotten more attention nationally. It flew largely under the radar for many Americans. And who can blame them? Democracy is under attack from so many angles, who can keep up? The truth is, election denial was alive and well in North Carolina this election cycle. But ultimately, the federal courts stepped in and settled the race once and for all. Judge Myers didn't hesitate to rebuke the problematic nature of such an approach. He wrote: 'A post-election change of practice that results in the discarding of votes is abominable under the Constitution of the United States.' Griffin ultimately called off the fight and conceded to Riggs, allowing her to, finally, be sworn in to a new term on the North Carolina Supreme Court. As long as I wasn't one of the candidates, nor a North Carolina citizen looking for finality, there's a silver lining. The ruling provided a persuasive refresher on election law for judges. It came from the chief judge of a district. It came from a Republican-appointed judge. It came from a Trump-appointed judge. Don't get me wrong. The lawsuit threatened to undermine the legitimacy of our election system and silence the eligible voters. It's going to take time for pro-democracy officials in North Carolina, and across our country, to rebuild trust in our election system. We have the federal courts to thank for keeping our election system free, fair, and secure this cycle. I firmly believe that almost all federal judges consistently do the right thing according to fact and law, regardless of their politics. But for those who think the judiciary is just 'politics in robes,' we couldn't have asked for a better ambassador for election-law-sanity than we got in this federal court. As I have said many times over the past few months, thank goodness for our federal judiciary, one which continues to be the envy of the world.
New York Post
23-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Hamptons gears up for another summer of vacation and regulation
Memorial Day kicks off summer — and the influx of seasonal residents to the Hamptons. But it's not all sunshine and revelry. Prompted by a vocal group of year-round residents, several towns on Long Island's East End are imposing ever stricter laws and regulations, casting a shadow over the region's vibrant summer scene. Perhaps the most visible example to residents and tourists alike is Duryea's, which was only allowed to open this summer because the New York state supreme court stepped in, sources told me. As I've previously reported, the beloved Montauk restaurant, which is owned by Marc Rowan, has faced years of legal action. First the Town of East Hampton demanded it upgrade the septic system and then prohibited it from getting the permits needed to do so. Earlier this month, it looked like Duryea's might be closed for the whole summer. 3 The New York State Supreme Court had to step in to ensure Duryea's in Montauk could open. But, I'm told, the State Supreme Court has intervened and allowed the installation of a state-of-the art septic system, enabling the restaurant to open for the upcoming holiday weekend, though litigation with the town is still pending. The Duryea's drama is just the latest in a string of sagas. Town boards in the Hamptons are infamous for trying to micromanage everything from leaf blower usage and landscape lighting wattage to whether people can spontaneously dance at a tavern. 3 Pickleball has become another sore spot for residents as towns clamp down on new and existing courts. Tamara Beckwith Over the past year, pickleball courts, house size and who can fly into the public airport have been primary targets. The regulations have frustrated businesses and restaurants, pushing some to flee to summer locales with less red tape. Last fall, East Hampton and Southampton cracked down on residential pickleball courts and their noise. A new law demands that 'Pickleball courts must be surrounded on three sides by an eight-foot sound-attenuation wall, placed no further than 10 feet from the edge of the court, constructed of a minimum of ¾-inch planking.' Such soundproofing can cost homeowners upwards of $100,000. This story is part of NYNext, an indispensable insider insight into the innovations, moonshots and political chess moves that matter most to NYC's power players (and those who aspire to be). This comes after towns like North Haven enacted a six-month moratorium on any residential pickleball courts being built — or tennis courts being transformed to pickleball courts. In December, the town of East Hampton passed a law that will not only prevent anyone from building a home larger than 10,000-square-foot, in an effort to preserve the town's 'rural character,' but also limit any new homes (or expansion) to just 10% of a lot's square footage. For instance, a quarter-acre lot would now only allow a 2,000-square-foot home, while a half-acre would only permit a 3,600 square foot home, making it impossible for residents to work towards building a sun room or remodel a smaller home. The new law goes into effect July 1. 3 East Hampton has been embroiled with the local airport about noise complaints and the number of flights. Dennis A. Clark The Town of East Hampton is also still embroiled in a legal dispute over its airport — the Hampton's primary airport. Over the past three years, the town has spent more than $5 million on lawyers as it tries to limit flights and noise. It is just the latest move in the decade-old legal battle. Of course, the town putting the squeeze on business owners is not new. Business owners tell me they still keep the flame alive for iconic advertising executive Jerry Delefemaina. In 1997, he was arrested and handcuffed for placing Thanksgiving decorations — hay bales, corn stalks and pumpkins — outside his Redhorse Food Market in East Hampton. The town said it violated a rule that prohibits stores from advertising on the property outside their storefront. While it's still a rallying cry, it's also a sign that over the decades not much seems to have changed. Send NYNext a tip: nynextlydia@
New York Times
05-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Judge Orders Elections Board to Certify Democrat's Victory in Contested N.C. Race
A federal judge on Monday ordered the North Carolina Board of Elections to certify the Democratic incumbent's victory in a State Supreme Court race, rejecting a monthslong effort from the Republican challenger to throw out tens of thousand of votes. Two recounts confirmed the incumbent, Justice Allison Riggs, winning in November by 734 votes. But the Republican candidate, Judge Jefferson Griffin, has sought to reverse his election loss by calling into question the eligibility of thousands of voters. On Monday, Chief Judge Richard E. Myers II, a Trump nominee to the United States District Court in Raleigh, rejected those arguments. 'You establish the rules before the game,' Judge Myers wrote in his 68-page ruling. 'You don't change them after the game is done.' But he gave Judge Griffin, who currently sits on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, seven days to appeal. That means that the ruling on Monday may not be the end of the case, which has ping-ponged through state and federal courts and tested the boundaries of post-election litigation. The race remains the last 2024 race in the nation to be certified. This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Daily Mail
02-05-2025
- Sport
- Daily Mail
Shock twist as Yankees icon and wife are entangled in child sexual abuse lawsuit
New York Yankees legend Mariano Rivera and his wife Clara have been added as named defendants in a bombshell child sexual abuse lawsuit that was first filed four months ago. Back in January, Mariano and Clara were accused in the lawsuit of covering up child sexual abuse that occurred both at their home and a summer camp linked to their church, which was filed by a girl and her mother in State Supreme Court in Westchester County, New York. The lawsuit, which alleges the plaintiff was abused by an older child at events connected to the church in Westchester County where the Riveras both serve as pastors, did not originally list them as defendants despite accusing them of failing to protect her. Yet on Wednesday, Adam Horowitz, an attorney for the girl, said they have now been added in an amended court filing, according to ESPN. It has been determined that Mariano, a baseball Hall of Famer, and Clara are not connected with Refuge of Hope - the church and limited liability company founded by the Riveras that was initially named in the suit. The LLC is also believed to have included their former home address, which they sold back in 2022. Rivera pitched for the Yankees from 1995 to 2013 and captured five World Series titles Despite being added as named defendants, Mariano and Clare have not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing. Joseph A. Ruta, an attorney for the Riveras, previously described allegations that they failed to act on reports of child abuse as 'completely false'. Ruta added that they learned of the accusations in 2022 after receiving a letter from an attorney demanding a financial settlement. The original suit claimed the plaintiff, identified only as 'Jane Doe', was convinced by Clara to go to Gainesville, Florida for a summer internship that the Ignite Life Center, which was affiliated with Refuge of Hope, was hosting. While there Doe was allegedly abused by an older female camper, who was a minor at the time. It's alleged Doe was repeatedly abused in the camp's dormitory and showers, with the older girl 'fondling and penetrating' her breasts, buttocks and genitals. The lawsuit claims that when Doe's mother was informed about the alleged abuse, she contacted Clara - who is a senior pastor at the church - to tell her she was 'concerned' for her daughter's safety. The mother was supposedly 'assured' by Clara that she would investigate when her and Mariano, a Baseball Hall of Famer, attended the camp themselves. However, when they arrived, it's claimed both Mariano and Clara 'each separately isolated' Doe and 'intimidated her to remain silent' to 'avoid causing trouble' for the church and summer camp. When the camp and internship had concluded, Doe claims she returned to New York and kept attending Refuge of Hope services. However, according to the complaint, an alleged separate incident of abuse by the same older girl, took place in August 2018 at a barbecue that was hosted by the Riveras at their then $4million Rye, New York home. Parents were not invited. The older girl was allegedly invited and 'once again sexually abused' Doe. It's claimed she 'engaged in acts that would constitute a sexual offense under Article 130 of the New York Penal Law', according to the filing. Years later, in 2021, Doe was then allegedly sexually abused by the adult son of an associate pastor, who was working as a youth leader for the Refuge of Hope. The Riveras 'falsely promoted their activities and premises as being safe, moral, and otherwise free of a risk of harm when it knew or should have known otherwise,' the lawsuit stated. Rivera, 55, pitched for the Yankees from 1995 to 2013 and won five World Series titles in The Bronx. He is regarded as one of the greatest-ever closers and was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2019.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Carolina Appeals Court Allows Republican Power Grab On State Election Board
In a win for Republicans, a North Carolina Appeals court panel ruled on Wednesday that a piece of legislation designed to strip power from state level elected Democrats and give Republicans control of the state election board in an overt power grab, can take effect. It's the latest way in which North Carolina's Republican-controlled state legislature is attempting to steal authority from Democrats — who hold the offices of governor, secretary of state, and attorney general — and gain control over election administration in the state. In December, then-newly elected North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein along with former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper filed a lawsuit against the GOP-controlled state legislature's leadership, which at the time held a supermajority, over a piece of legislation known as SB382. The sweeping bill, which was presented as a hurricane relief bill, contained in it a provision that gave Republican state auditor Dave Boliek authority over the state's five-person election board, attempting to strip that authority from the newly elected Democratic governor, Stein. No other state grants the state auditor, instead of the governor, this type of authority. In a 2-1 decision late last month, North Carolina trial judges sided with Stein and Cooper and found the legislation was unconstitutional and, if implemented, would 'interfere with the Governor's constitutional duties.' Wednesday's ruling, however, blocked last month's earlier lower court ruling, paving the way for Republicans to take over the state's election board and complete its power grab. Boliek is expected to shift the board to a Republican majority. Stein has appealed the ruling to the State Supreme Court. This GOP power grab is happening against the backdrop of another ongoing Republican attempt to steal an election from a Democrat in the state. The Wednesday ruling could collide with the outcome of a Republican Supreme Court candidate's attempt to overturn the results of a race the Democratic incumbent won. Republican state Supreme Court candidate and Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin, since his November 2024 loss, has been trying to steal the State Supreme Court race from Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs, whose victory has been affirmed by two recounts. Jefferson has been trying to invalidate close to 60,000 ballots in the race, alleging without proof that these ballots are ineligible and should be thrown out due to supposed voter registration issues. In a post on X Wednesday, Stein called the decision the 'latest step in the partisan effort to steal a seat on the Supreme Court.' 'Jefferson Griffin lost. When you lose, you work harder the next time to win. You do not try to change the rules after the election is over. Today's Court of Appeals decision about the Board of Elections poses a threat to our democracy and the rule of law. The Supreme Court should not allow it to stand,' Stein wrote on X. 'No emergency exists that can justify the Court of Appeals' decision to interject itself at this point. The only plausible explanation is to permit the Republican State Auditor to appoint a new State Board of Elections that will try to overturn the results of the Supreme Court race,' added Stein.
