NC's high court legislates from the bench. Ignores law and voters to help Trump
Published September 12, 2024
By Capitol Broadcasting Company
The priorities of a majority of justices on North Carolina’s Supreme Court are clear –revealed in this week’s order removing “We The People” Party candidate Robert F. Kennedy from the state’s 2024 election ballot after tens-of-thousands were printed to meet a legal deadline.
It is politics, not the law, that motivates their decisions.
State law is clear:
- If a political party’s nominee resigns after ballots have been printed, it is up to the State Board of Elections to determine if it is “practical” to make a change.
- Ballots are required to be printed and ready for distribution for those requesting to vote absentee by mail , including for those in the military services and overseas, no later than Sept. 6.
But those laws don’t matter to at least four Republican State Supreme Court justices when the candidate in question – RFK Jr. – endorses Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
“The rules of our elections allow such attempted gaming of the presidential election system when done far enough in advance,” said Justice Anita Earls in her dissent. “But it is not fair to the rest of the state to disregard state election laws to accommodate a late-breaking political strategy.”
While the court’s majority offered plenty of excuses to block the State Board’s decision – none of them were about the law. They worried that voters might believe that Kennedy was still a candidate. They wrongly suggested that ballot preparation was “in its infant stages.”
Kennedy won a place on the North Carolina ballot in mid-July. On Aug. 23, about a month later, RFK Jr. announced he was suspending his campaign and endorsing Trump. Local boards of elections had already started the process of printing ballots to meet the Sept. 6 deadline.
Further, any request to have Kennedy’s name removed needed to come from the “We The People” Party since he was its nominee. Such a request came on Aug 28. The next day the state board, in an emergency meeting, denied the request because ballots were already printed to meet the state’s legally mandated deadline.
That decision was upheld by a state Superior Court Judge on Sept. 5 – a day before the date state law required absentee mail-in ballots be distributed to those requesting them.
The following day, an anonymous state Court of Appeals panel – without any explanation – reversed the judge and that brought us to Monday’s 4-3 state Supreme Court decision – ignoring state laws, ordering Kennedy’s name off the ballot. Again, contrary to state law, delaying distribution of the ballots.
“Our election laws support the State Board of Elections’ determination,” said State Supreme Court Justice Richard Dietz, a Republican by the way, who joined justices Earls and Allison Riggs (both Democrats) in opposing the order.
“I view my role as enforcing the law as it is written,” Dietz said in his dissent.
“The State Board of Elections properly determined that it would not be practical to reprint the ballots.” he said.
State elections officials have said it would take from two to more than three weeks to “generate, print, proof and assemble new ballot packets – not nearly enough time to meet the legally-mandated deadline for ballots to be ready.
The cost of these changes for nearly 3 million ballots already printed – totaling in the millions of dollars statewide -- now must be borne by the 100 county Boards of Election – not the state.
The court’s decision has not simply imposed an unreasonable burden on state and local boards of elections to meet state and federal deadlines for ballot distribution.
It has also imposed an added burden on those who vote by mail to meet the newly revised – and unreasonable – processes and deadlines for receipt of ballots.
Since the court is now giving those who vote by mail less time to receive ballots, complete the voting process that requires a copy of a photo ID as well as two witness signatures – the deadline should be extended.
The state Supreme Court, with the same authority it assumed to order the last-minute change in the state ballot, should extend the time for receipt of those ballots beyond the current Election Day deadline.
It would not be unreasonable, given these late changes, to count ballots that were postmarked on Election Day – and received within nine days – similar to the deadlines in North Carolina for the 2020 presidential election.
Voters should not be burdened or even denied their opportunity to vote because of political machinations or impetuous judicial actions.
Judges must not legislate from the bench, ignoring the law to help Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions.
Our courts’ first obligation is to uphold the law and recognize that voters come first – before the vanity of candidates or the manipulation of politicians.
Capitol Broadcasting Company's Opinion Section seeks a broad range of comments and letters to the editor. We invite you to write a letter to the editor about this or any other opinion articles.
