Could it be partisan?
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A North Carolina appeals court sided Friday with the trailing Republican candidate in an extremely close state Supreme Court election, a ruling that could flip the result of the nation’s only 2024 race that is still undecided.
In a 2-1 decision with registered Republican judges composing the majority, a panel of the intermediate-level Court of Appeals ruled that ballots — likely tens of thousands of them — were wrongly allowed in the tally. But the ruling, if upheld, would give most of those voters a three-week window to provide additional information for their choices to count, or see the ballots get removed.
The disputed ballots are believed to favor Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs, who, after two recounts, held a 734-vote lead over Republican Jefferson Griffin in their race, which saw over 5.5 million ballots cast.
I’m busy with multiple projects (one related to this case), so I haven’t fully digested this ruling. But let’s just look at a small piece of the majority opinion (pg. 36):
Finally, as to the “Never Residents” voters, we conclude these purported voters
are not eligible to vote in North Carolina, non-federal elections, and the votes cast by
these purported voters are not to be included in the final count in the 2024 election
for Seat 6.
The judges base that conclusion on cases referencing an independent voter’s (over 18) intent (or not) to return to N.C. Thus, they argue, someone over 18 who cannot prove intent to reserve an address in N.C. is not eligible to claim N.C. as a voting residence or to vote in its state elections. “Residency for an absent, non-dependent, and emancipated adult is not inherited,” they majority writes. But here are the statutes they ignored:
§ 163-258.2. Definitions.
As used in this Article:
(1) “Covered voter” means any of the following:
e. An overseas voter who was born outside the United States, is not described in sub-subdivision c. or d. of this subdivision, and, except for a State residency requirement, otherwise satisfies this State’s voter eligibility requirements, if:
- The last place where a parent or legal guardian of the voter was, or under this Article would have been, eligible to vote before leaving the United States is within this State; and
- The voter has not previously registered to vote in any other state.
§ 163‑258.3. Elections covered.
The voting procedures in this Article apply to all of the following:
(1) A primary, general, or special election for federal or State office.
These statute sections protect voters wanting to exercise their rights from overseas. That assumes they are citizens over 18 (and independent if they choose). I’m not a lawyer, but don’t see anything in there about “emancipated” adults affirmatively establishing “a domicile of choice and having no intent to return to North Carolina.” But the court majority thinks that matters despite the black-letter law because black-letter law here is inconvenient. That’s some fine interpretatin’. (The NC statute mirrors the federal (UOCAVA law meant to guarantee the vote to Americans born outside the country but who never lived here.)
Judge Toby Hampson, the Democrat, offers a blistering dissenting opinion.
Why should you care? Because the GOP means to export this approach to overturning elections Republicans lose to your state, that’s why.
* * * * *
Have you fought autocracy today?
National Day of Action, Saturday, April 5 (TODAY)
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense